Court Opinion

ID: 9617631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:59:02.916746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:13.955100
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
OPINION

Per Curiam:

Respondents have filed a petition for rehearing upon this appeal. In our view rehearing is not warranted. *168One ground, however, would seem to warrant comment.
In disposing of the contention of respondent de Sollano that he had in any event made a valid subscription to the stock, we stated in our original opinion: “De Sollano also contended that the corporation was indebted to him in sums exceeding the amount necessary for his pre-emptive payments. This, however, entirely failed of proof.” The petition for rehearing takes issue with this statement and refers to various places in the record indicating that the corporation was indebted to de Sollano and had indeed actually, at a later date, made payments to him on account of such indebtedness. Perhaps our statement of there being an entire failure of proof was too cryptic.
The true issue upon this point was not whether the corporation was then actually indebted to de Sollano in some unliquidated amount for past services and miscellaneous advances. Rather, it was whether an indebtedness then existed which de Sollano as a matter of right could apply against the amount necessary for preemptive payments. A further study of the record in the light of the petition reinforces our view that there was a complete failure of proof that such an indebtedness existed.
Rehearing denied.