Case Name: HAMILTON v. DEINZER
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1909-07-06
Citations: 157 Mich. 484
Docket Number: Docket No. 16
Parties: HAMILTON v. DEINZER.
Judges: Grant, Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
HAMILTON v. DEINZER.
Corporations — Unpaid Stock.
Findings of fact made by the circuit court in chancery adjudging the defendants to be stockholders in the Excelsior Manufacturing Co., and assessing them upon their unpaid stock, are held to be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Appeal from Wayne; Murphy, J.
Submitted June 9, 1909.
(Docket No. 16.)
Decided July 6, 1909.
Bill by James Hamilton against Frederick Deinzer, Frederick W. Biederman, the Excelsior Manufacturing Company and others to restrain the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, for an accounting, and the specific performance of a contract. Defendant Biederman filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill to determine the status of defendant corporation, and for an accounting. From the decree rendered, complainant and defendant Biederman appeal.
Affirmed.
May & Dingeman, for complainant.
Graves, Hatch & Wasey, for defendants.

Opinion:
Ostrander, J.
The case presents issues of fact only. The situation as indicated by the pleadings is a somewhat complicated one, and an analysis of the testimony does not bring the mind easily to satisfactory conclusions respecting the rights of the parties litigant. The contention which the complainant as appellant makes is that the court below should have concluded that the defendants Deinzer are stockholders (in excess of one share each), and are not creditors of the Excelsior Manufacturing Company. Defendant Biederman appeals from that portion of the decree which adjudges him to be a stock holder in said company, and requires him to pay for the shares actually subscribed for by him. It will profit no one to set out the testimony.
We find a preponderance in support of the conclusions reached below, and affirm the decree. The defendants Deinzer will recover of complainant the cost of printing their brief and the usual solicitor's fee. The cost of printing the record will be equally divided between the appellants Hamilton and Biederman. No other costs are awarded.
Grant, Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.