Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/91/45/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:29:30+00:00

Document:
1. The original holder of stock in a corporation is liable for unpaid installments of stock, without an express promise to pay them, and a contract between a corporation or its agents and him limiting his liability therefor is void both as to the creditors of the company and its assignee in bankruptcy.
2. Representations by the agent of a corporation as to the nonassessability of its stock beyond a certain percentage of its value, constitute no defense to an action against the holder of the stock to enforce payment of the entire amount subscribed where he has failed to use due diligence to ascertain the truth or falsity of such representations.
3. The word "nonassessable" upon the certificate of stock does not cancel or impair the obligation to pay the amount due upon the shares created by the acceptance and holding of such certificate. At most, its legal effect is a stipulation against liability from further assessment or taxation after the entire subscription of one hundred percent shall have been paid.
4. Assuming the representations of the agent of the company as to the nonassessment of the stock to be a fraud which would avoid the contract, the question arises whether the defendant discharged his duty in discovering the fraud and repudiating the contract on that account, and not on account of another fraud not in issue. Held that the plaintiff was entitled to the opinion of the jury on that precise question.
same, whereby he became bound to pay the full amount thereof, as follows: five percent upon delivery of the certificates; five percent in three months; five percent in six months; five percent in nine months; and the residue whenever called for by the company, according to the charter of the company and the laws of the State of Illinois.
"that said note was a full payment and discharge of all obligations and personal liabilities of all kinds whatsoever by reason of his contract so made and the relations created by the delivery to him of said certificate, and said note was received in full payment."
In his third amended answer, the defendant avers that he did subscribe for stock on the conditions mentioned; that after that contract was made, and before a certificate was delivered to him, and before executing his note, an agreement was made with Overton on behalf of the company to the effect before stated; and thereupon he made and delivered the note and mortgage which was received by Overton in full discharge and payment of the amount due on his said subscription.
by the company to the Auditor of the State of Illinois of the amount of "unpaid subscribed capital for which the subscribers were liable," the amount of the defendant's note was included.
"2d. That any contract between the company or its agents and the stockholders, limiting their liability as to unpaid installments of stock, is void as to creditors of the company, and as to the rights of the assignee who represents the creditors in this action."
"3d. That if the jury find from the evidence that the defendant, J. D. Tribilcock, became a stockholder of the Great Western Insurance Company in the month of August, 1870, and that he continued to own and hold said stock until after the insolvency of the company in February, 1873, that any representations by any agent of the company at the time defendant became such stockholder as to the matter of his liability for eighty percent of the stock, or any endorsement on the stock of the word 'nonassessable,' are wholly immaterial, and constitute no defense to this action."
by the courts. The idea that the capital of a corporation is a football to be thrown into the market for the purposes of speculation, that its value may be elevated or depressed to advance the interests of its managers, is a modern and wicked invention. Equally unsound is the opinion that the obligation of a subscriber to pay his subscription may be released or surrendered to him by the trustees of the company. This has been often attempted, but never successfully. The capital paid in, and promised to be paid in, is a fund which the trustees cannot squander or give away. They are bound to call in what is unpaid, and carefully to husband it when received. Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610; Tuckerman v. Brown, 33 N.Y. 297; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380; Osgood v. Laytin, 3 Keys, 521; 37 How.Pr. 63, aff'g 48 Barb. 463; Gross, Ill.Stat., p. 356 § 16.
We are of the opinion that the alleged representation of the nonassessability of the stock held by him was quite immaterial. It was so held in Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380.
Again, if full effect is given to the evidence of the defendant and to his claim in this respect, it shows this, and nothing more: he became a stockholder under a certificate signed by the president and secretary that he was entitled to one hundred shares of the stock of $100 each, payable five percent on receipt of the certificate; five percent in three months; five percent in six months; five percent in nine months from date; the time or manner of the payment of the residue not being specified. Upon the face of this certificate were stamped in red ink the figures "$100," and in another place was stamped the word "nonassessable." This certificate he held until the insolvency of the company in 1873 was known to him.
an acceptance and holding of a certificate. Palmer v. Lawrence, 3 Sand.S.C. 761; Brigham v. Mead, 10 Allen 245. At the most, the legal effect of the word in question is a stipulation against liability to further taxation or assessment after the holder shall have fulfilled his contract to pay the one hundred percent in the manner and at the times indicated. We cannot give to it the consequence of destroying the legal effect of the certificate.
Still, again, the representations relied upon as a defense, it will be noticed, were as to the legal effect of the defendant's subscription and certificate. It is alleged that the agent represented that by the laws of the State of Illinois and by the charter of this company, the defendant might become a subscriber to the amount of $10,000, and, by means of a certificate to be given to him like that exhibited, he would really be liable only to the extent of one-fifth of his said subscription, and that good lawyers had given their advice to this effect.
There was here no error, mistake, or misrepresentation of any fact. The defendant made the subscription he intended to make, and received the certificate he had stipulated for, and, as there is no evidence to the contrary, it is to be presumed the good lawyers advised as was stated; but in law the defendant incurred a larger liability than he anticipated. Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N.Y. 19.
"Every person who shall subscribe for $10,000 of stock and pay twenty percent thereof shall be constituted a director of this company and shall continue such director so long as he shall retain of such stock an amount equal to $10,000; but such $10,000 shall not be reckoned in the election of other directors."
It was under this section and the succeeding one, authorizing the establishment of a branch in any place where such subscription was made, and by which the defendant became a director and might be president thereof, that the transaction took place.
That the defendant did not read the charter and bylaws, if such were the fact, was his own fault. It will not do for a man to enter into a contract, and, when called upon to respond to its obligations, to say that he did not read it when he signed it, or did not know what it contained. If this were permitted, contracts would not be worth the paper on which they are written. But such is not the law. A contractor must stand by the words of his contract; and, if he will not read what he signs, he alone is responsible for his omission. Jackson v. Croy, 12 Johns. 427; Leis v. Stubbs, 6 Watts, 48; Farly v. Bryant, 32 Me. 474; Coffing v. Taylor, 16 Ill. 457; Slafyton v. Scott, 13 Ves. 427; Alvanly v. Kinnaid, 2 Mac. & G. 7; 29 Beav. 490.
That a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the law will not vitiate a contract, where there is no misunderstanding of the facts, is well settled.
"A representation of what the law will or will not permit to be done is one on which the party to whom it is made has no right to rely; and if he does so it is his folly, and he cannot ask the law to relieve him from the consequences. The truth or falsehood of such a representation can be tested by ordinary vigilance and attention. It is an opinion in regard to the law, and is always understood as such."
See Star v. Bennett, 5 Hill 303; Lewis v. Jones, 4 B. & C. 506; Rashall v. Ford, Law Rep. 2 Eq. 750.
The law is presumed to be equally within the knowledge of all parties.
That a stockholder may relieve himself from his liability by proof that he was misinformed as to the effect of his contract when he made it would be a disastrous doctrine.
That a defendant, who could not by contract lawfully relieve himself from liability as a stockholder, can accomplish that result by proof that it was fraudulently represented to him that he could so relieve himself, would be strange indeed. Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380.
The rule, that a mistake of law does not avail, prevails in equity as well as at common law. Bank of the United States v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32; Hunt v. Rousman, 1 Pet. 1; 21 U. S. 8 Wheat. 174; Mellech v. Robertson, 25 Vt. 603; Leant v. Palmer, 3 Comst. 19.
"If ignorance of law was admitted as a ground of exemption, the court would be involved in questions which it were scarcely possible to solve, and which would render the administration of justice next to impossible; for in almost every case ignorance of law would be alleged, and the court would, for the purpose of determining this point, be often compelled to enter upon questions of fact insoluble and interminable."
Austin's Jour., vol. ii. p. 172; Kerr 397.
A statement that the insurance company had consulted with good lawyers, and that their opinion was as stated, should have been clear proof to the defendant that a representation of the law was a matter of opinion only.
We think the judge erred in not charging as was requested.
"that he never suspected any liability as to said eighty percent, or that the said representation as to the laws of Illinois were false, until the agent of the assignee made a demand upon him for the eighty percent in the year 1873; and that, as no claim had been made upon him, he never made any investigation as to the truth of such representations until after said demand in 1873."
In February, 1871, the defendant did ask for a rescission of his contract, on the untenable ground that it had been fraudulently represented to him that his note should be retained and held in Bloomfield, Iowa; which representation had been violated by a sale of the same, and a removal thereof to the City of Chicago. The defendant is explicit and emphatic in his evidence that this attempted repudiation "was based wholly on what was represented" as to the intended disposition of the notes and mortgage.
induced to subscribe for the stock upon a fraudulent representation as to his liability for the eighty percent, but upon another ground -- to-wit, that the company had sold and assigned his note and mortgages -- then such offer is immaterial, and the evidence of fraud in such misrepresentations as to his liability for the eighty percent cannot be made available in this suit, and constitutes no defense in this action."
"12. That if defendant was induced, in August, 1870, to become a stockholder of the Great Western Insurance Company by a representation of the agent of the company that eighty percent of the stock was nonassessable, and that the laws of the State of Illinois allowed the company to make such contract with those who took stock, then it was the duty of the defendant to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the truth of such representations, and to ascertain what the law of Illinois was on that subject; that if he did not do so within a reasonable time, and did not ascertain the truth of said matter until after the insolvency of the company in 1873, then he cannot, as to the creditors of the company, maintain any defense by means of such representations. The court instructs you as matter of law that the defendant could have ascertained the truth of such representations within a few months from the time they were made, and that not doing so is negligence on the part of the defendant that bars such defense as to the assignee."
The defense arising from the alleged promissory representations that the note and mortgage of the defendant should not be removed from Bloomfield, but should be retained in charge of the branch of the company at that place, was frivolous, and was practically abandoned on the trial. The case was submitted to the jury solely on the question arising upon the representations of the nonassessability of the eighty percent. The attempted rescission on account of the representation as to nonremoval and its violation was, however, unfortunately introduced into the charge in a manner that prejudiced the right of the plaintiff.
evidence that within a few months after receiving the stock certificate, the defendant, discovering that he had been deceived in some respects, procured the agent who had obtained his certificate to go to Chicago, delivering to such agent his stock certificate, and instructed the agent to surrender up the stock and demand back the note for twenty percent, and if the agent accordingly went to Chicago, and offered to the company to surrender the stock and rescind the contract, which the company refused; and if you find that the defendant never afterwards acquiesced in being a member of the company; that in September, 1871, he brought an action of replevin for the note, based on the ground of fraud; and if afterwards he refused to receive any dividend; and if all this took place before bankruptcy or insolvency of the company -- I instruct that in point of law this is a sufficient repudiation of the contract to become a stockholder to enable defendant, living in another state, to resist an action for the payment of the eighty percent, provided you find that defendant was induced to become a stockholder by fraud, as before explained, and also further find, in view of all the circumstances, that defendant was not unreasonably negligent in discovering the fraud, and was guilty of no want of reasonable diligence in taking steps to repudiate the transaction."
To this charge the plaintiff excepted.
The general principles set forth in this charge are no doubt sound. If the alleged promissory representation as to the nonremoval of the note had been available, and had the question been submitted to the jury, the charge would have been well enough. But that question was not before them. The questions submitted to them related exclusively to the representations that the eighty percent should not be required to be paid. That was the fraud before the jury, and the question involved in the seventh and twelfth requests was this: assuming that representation to be a fraud which would avoid the contract, had the defendant discharged his duty in discovering that fraud, and repudiating the contract on account of that fraud, and not on account of another fraud not now in question? We think the plaintiff was entitled to the opinion of the jury on that precise question. The charge refused him this right.
The jury were charged that if within a few months after receiving the certificate the defendant, discovering that he had been deceived in some respects, sent an agent to Chicago to surrender his certificate and demand his note, if he never afterwards acquiesced in being a member of the company, if he brought an action of replevin for the note, and if he refused to receive a dividend, this was sufficient evidence of repudiation. This was well enough as to the abandoned fraud which was not before the jury, but was entirely inapplicable to the fraud that was before them. As to that fraud, the defendant testified that he had no knowledge or suspicion of its existence until after the demand made upon him in 1873 by the assignee, and that he never made any investigation as to the truth of the representation as to the eighty percent liability until after said demand in 1873. On this point there was no contradictory evidence. It should have been ruled as a question of law. Pettibone v. Stevens, 15 Conn. 19; Beers v. Bottsford, 13 id. 146. The submission should have been made, if not ruled as a question of law, on these facts only, as requested, and the failure to do so, and the introduction of the facts tending to show a repudiation on the ground of another fraud, could not fail to confuse the jury, and was error on the part of the judge.
Wright's Case, Law Rep. 12 Eq. 1871, pp. 331-351, is an authority on this point. It was there held first that under the English act, a surrender and cancellation of shares did not relieve the holder from his liability to creditors of the bank, and second that a surrender by Wright of his shares in November on the ground of an apprehended difficulty in the affairs of the bank, did not enable him to claim a rescission of his subscription on account of a fraudulent representation in the prospectus of the company, which fraud was then unknown to him. Henderson v. Royal British Bank, 7 E. & B. 356; Parris v. Harding, 1 C.B.N.S. 533; Oates v. Turquand, L.R. 2 App.Cas. 325.
of such fraud is a sound one. Thomas v. Barton, 48 N.Y. 193.
The defendant sought to become a member of a corporation of the State of Illinois and to obtain the benefits and advantages of its special privileges. If he is not held to be bound to know and accept all the consequences of this connection, he certainly is bound to use care and attention to ascertain his position, and promptly to make his choice of retaining it with its advantages and responsibilities or of abandoning it. To subscribe for stock in a corporation in August, 1870, to rest quietly until the year 1873, never making any investigation as to the position in which he stood until that time and until after the assignee in bankruptcy had made a demand upon him, falls very far short of what the law requires. Especially is this the case when it is shown that he lived in an adjoining state; that he sent an agent to Chicago, and himself went to that city in 1871 to obtain his note and mortgage from that very company for an alleged misconduct in another respect. It was his plain duty to have inquired and to have ascertained his position long before he did. "A party must use reasonable diligence to ascertain the facts." Buford v. Brown, 6 B.Mon. 553.
Mere lapse of time, where a party has not asserted his claim with reasonable diligence, is a bar to relief. Relief is not given to those who sleep on their rights. Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 87-97; Jones v. Tuberville, 2 Ves.Jr. 11.
Equity will not assist a man whose condition is attributable only to that want of diligence which may be fairly expected from a reasonable person. Duke of Beaufort v. Neald, 2 Cl. & F. 248, 286.
Parties who are shareholders and claim to be relieved on the ground of fraud must act with the utmost diligence and promptitude. Smith's Case, L.R. 2 Ch.App. 613; Denton v. MacNeil, L.R. 2 Eq. 532; Peel's Case, L.R. 2 Ch.Ap. 684.
The judgment must be reversed and a new trial had.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER, with whom concurred MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE and MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, dissenting.
representations, the fraud can be relied on as a defense to a suit for the unpaid installments when suit is brought by the corporation, and that if the stockholder has in reasonable time repudiated the contract, and offered to rescind before the insolvency or bankruptcy of the corporation, the defense is valid against the assignee of the corporation.
I also think there was evidence of such fraud in this case, and that the question of reasonable diligence in the offer to rescind was fairly put to the jury by the circuit court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.