« ForrigeFortsett »
tent that any number less than the whole sonable under all the circumstances, and in may not amend the articles of incorporation view of the state of the law upon the subject so as to avoid the condition upon which the as we understand it. We feel thoroughly constock of the appellants was issued.
vinced that the conclusion reached is correct, Veither is it important here that there are and, entertaining this view, it could subother matters contained in the laws affecting serve no practical purpose to grant a rehearthe corporation and stockholders that are not ing of the case. contained in the articles of incorporation The application, therefore, should be, and which from time to time may be amended and accordingly is, denied. which may fall within the reserved power of the state. A complete answer to this is that MCCARTY, C. J., and STRAUP, J., concur. the state has not specially relegated these matters to the incorporators to agree upon as they deem best. With regard to all these
(13 Idaho, 556) the state simply provided rules or regula- | MILLS v. AMERICAN BONDING CO. et al. tions in the form of laws, all of which were (Supreme Court of Idaho. July 30, 1907.) ) subject to change at any time, and they thus | APPEAL — PROSECUTION – BAR OF REMEDYwere not, nor intended to be, matters in DISMISSAL. hering in special contracts. But, apart from
Where a litigant seeks and procures a re
moval of a case from the state court to a fedthis, in what way is the state, as such, inter- eral court, and thereafter pursues bis remedy in ested in private contracts, whether made be the latter court, and it is finally determined that tween incorporators or between
the federal court has acted without jurisdiction
and that the case has never been legally and reguelse? True, the people of the state are in
larly removed from the state court, and he there terested in having the resources of the state after takes up his case where he left off in the developed, and the state has an interest in state court, the bar of the statute and rules of promulgating wholesome laws and in hav- court limiting the time in which to pursue his
remedy on appeal will be held to run against ing them enforced; but whether money is ob- him the same as if he had never sought to prosetained by one method or another, either to cute his remedy in another forum. start a new enterprise or continue one al
(Ed. Note.--For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. ready launched, the state has no interest vol. 3, Appeal and Error, $ 2744.] whatever. Neither is it interested in whether
(Syllabus by the Court.) a private corporation discharges its obliga Appeal from District Court, Ada County; tions with money obtained through assess Geo. H. Stewart, Judge. ments of corporate stock or by the sale of Action by J. C. Mills, Jr., against the its property. Indeed, if the laws of this state American Bonding Company and others. are any indication of its policy, then it has Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants apmanifested that policy in declaring that cor- peal. Motion to dismiss appeal on grounds porate stock is not assessable, unless made that transcript has not been filed in time reso by the stockholders themselves. True, the quired by rules of court. Motion sustained, state may authorize a certain number of the and appeal dismissed. stockholders to do this as it applies to future
Morrison & Pence and Neal & Kinyon, for charters; but it cannot, after unconditionally
appellants. W. E. Borah, H. L. Fisher, and authorizing a contract granting the right to Frank J. Smith, for respondent. hold stock unconditionally, impose limitations upon that right by changing the con
AILSHIE, C. J. The respondent has moved tract, or authorizing it to be done, without for a dismissal of the appeal herein on the the consent of all the stockholders. Such a
grounds that it has not been prosecuted with contract, being wholly outside of the condi
diligence, and especially for the reason that tions and agreements required to obtain a
the transcript has not been prepared, served, corporate franchise, cannot be said to fall
and filed within 60 days after service of the within the reserved power of the state to
notice of appeal, as provided by the rules of alter and amend the laws governing corpora this court. This is a companion case to that tions.
of Finney V. American Bonding Co. et al., 91 In conclusion, we desire to state that,
Pac. 318, decided at this present term. The while the questions involved, in and of them same action has been taken in this case in selves, are of great importance to both the all respects as was taken in that case, and state and the citizen, the utility involved in the appellants are guilty of the same degree settling them is of still greater importance. of negligence, delay, and laches in this case Both sides bave, with much diligence and as in that one. On the authority of that case, earnestness, fully presented all that can both the original opinion and that on petition profitably be said upon either theory, and for rehearing, the appeal in this case must be they have thus rendered us much assistance dis in determining the questions. The duty to Appellants cite McIver v. Florida Central adopt one or the other theory devolved upon & P. R. Co., 110 Ga. 223, 36 S. E. 775, 65 L. us alone. We have adopted that which, in R. A. 437, as an authority in support of their our judgment, seemed the most just and rea contention that this court should assume
jurisdiction of the appeal and hear the case of which it was given by defendants was sold to on its merits. As we read that case, it does them, may show the representations of the sales
man, who made the sale; the written order benot support the position appellants are obliged ing obscure and subject to interpretation. to maintain here. It simply holds that where 3. BILLS AND NOTES-BONA FIDE P’URCHASa case has been commenced in a state court ERS-EVIDEXCE. and thereafter properly removed to a federal
Iefendants, in an action by the assignee of
a draft against the acceptors, for the purpose of court, and the plaintiff was nonsuited or vol
showing plaintiff's knowledge of the character untarily dismissed his case in the latter of the paper it was buying the defense being (ourt, he will not thereby precluded from that the trafts were given for worthless jewelry.
to the knowledge of plaintiff, may show that again commencing his action on the same
plaintiff had bought similar paper of the same Case in the state court at any time prior to jarty, to which the like defense had been made. the bar of the statute of limitations. It [Erl. Yote.-For cases in point, see ('ent. Dig. should also be borne in mind that the Volver vol. 7. Bills and Notes, $ 1741.] Case recognizes the principle that, even
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane though the case be properly removed to a County; Miles Poin:lexter, Judge. federal court. nevertheless the statute of Action by the Johnson County Savings limitations continues to run against the right Bank against Victor A. Rapp and another, ('0)of action under the state statutes. If this is partners doing business as Rapp & Lloyd. true where there has been a proper and regu- Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. lar removal, it must be equally true where Affirmed. the removal eventually proved abortive and
A. E. Russell, for appellant. Danson & without jurisdiction. If under such circum
Williams, for respondents. stances the bar of the statute runs against the prosecution of the action in the state FULLERTOX, J. The appellant is a bankcourt, why should not the bar run in like ing corporation doing business at Iowa City, manner against the prosecution of the appel in the state of Iowa. The respondents are late remedy for the review and correction of merchants doing business in this state. In errors? We think the law and reason of the the summer of 1904 the Puritan Manufacturcase, as well as the justice and equity there ing Company, of Iowa City, Iowa, contracted of, require that the litigant who seeks and to sell and deliver to the respondents certain procures a removal, and thereafter pursues jewelry at the agreed price of $234, to be his remedy in the federal court and is un paid for in four quarterly payments, of $3.successful, and then takes up his case in the 25 each, "if the purchaser gives his four acstate court and prosecutes his remedy in the ceptances, each for one-quarter of the amount, latter court, should be dealt with in all re to close the account within ten days from the
date of delivery; otherwise terms are net the jurisdiction of another forum for the (ash 15 days, 6% discount cash 10 days.” The trial of his case; and if he has abandoned sale was made by the Puritan Manufacturing the proper tribunal, and has voluntarily spent Company's traveling salesman. On the rea portion of "his day in court" in a forum
ceipt of the order given the salesman by the without jurisdiction, that time should be respondents, the jewelry company shipped charged against him when he takes up his
them certain jewelry, and at the same time cause before the proper tribunal.
drew upon them four drafts payable accordThe appeal herein is dismissed, with the
ing to the terms of the contract of sale above costs in favor of respondent.
quoted. These the respondents accepted on August 3, 19904. On September 30th there
after the Puritan Manufacturing Company SULLIVAN, J., concurs.
indorsed them and delivered them to the ar
pellant. The drafts were not paid at ma(47 Wash. 30)
turity, and this action was brought to recover JOHNSON COUNTY SAVINGS BANK v.
thereon. The respondents defended on the RAPP et al.
ground that the jewelry shipped them was
not as warraunted by the jewelry company, (Supreme Court of Washington. Aug. 17, 1907.)
and was utterly worthless for any purposes 1. BILLS AND NOTES-SALE-BoxA FIDE PUR
for which they could use it, and that there CHASER--EVIDENCE. Evidence in an action on accepted drafts by
was for that reason no consideration for the the assignee thereof hold sufficient to go to the
drafts. The appellant claimed to be a purjury on the contention that plaintiff was not a chaser of the paper for value before maturity purchaser for value before maturity without no and without notice of any defect therein. On tice of deferts.
these issues a trial was had to a jury, re[Ed. Wote. For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 7, Bills and Yotes, $ 1879.1
sulting in a verdict and judgment for the re2. EVIDEXE-PAROL EVIDEXCE--FAILURE OF
It is first assigned that the court erred in Irfendants, in an action on an acepted refusing to sustain the appellant's challenge draft by the assignee thereof against the accept
to the sufficiency of the evidence: it being ors, for the purpose of showing, as part of their defense of failure of consideration, the condi
contendel that the respondents' evidence was tion on which the worthless jewelry, in payment insullicient to constitute a deteuse. But we
think the court properly submitted the matter
(151 Cal. 577) to the jury. On the question of the value of BROOKSIIIRE OIL CO. v. CASMALIA the goods, the respondents testified that they
R.INCI OIL & DEVELOPMENT were not as represented, and that all they
CO. et al. (L, A. 1,787.) were able to sell of them were returned by (Supreme Court of California. July 30, 1907.) the purchasers after a short time because of INJUNCTION TRESPASS
IRREPARABLE INtheir interior quality; and other witnesses,
JURY. (alled als experts in the jewelry line, testified
Plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary in
junction, where the complaint alleged he owned that the pools were worthless for the pur and had been in peaceable possession of an easeproses of legitimate trade. On the question of ment to maintain a pipe line to convey oil; that the knowledge of the appellant of this failure
defendants wrongfully and maliciously tore up
4,000 feet of the pipe, and mutilated and renof consideration the evidence is not so direct. dered it useless, with intent to wantonly prevent Still we think it sufficient to sustain the the exercise of the casement: that defendants verdict. While it is true the president of the threatened to: and would, if not restrained, pre
vent plaintiff by force from relaying the pipe pellant bank did testify in his examination
line which was essential in the continued marin (hief that the bank purchased the drafts keting of plaintiff's oil, and that the damage after they had been duly accepted by the re
| from such wrongful acts would be irreparable ; spondents, without notice or knowledge on his there to the answer admitting the tearing part of any defects therein, yet on cross-ex- : up of pipe, and merely raising the issue of the amination he admitted that he knew the ultimate title and property rights of the parties, character of the business the drawer of the
showing that plaintiff, if he should finally pre
vail, would not be irreparably damaged by the drafts was engaged in: that the bank had
acts temporarily enjoined, and it not appearing purchased large quantities of their paper, and plaintiff's use of the pipe line pendente lite had had a number of lawsuits over it where
would be of any serious detriment to defendant. the defense was failure of consideration.
[Ed. Note.For cases in point, see Cent. Dig.
vol. 27, Injunction, $$ 307, 306.) Ilis evidence, moreover, leaves a doubt whether there was any actual purchase of the pil
In Bank. Appeal from Superior Court, per-whether the pretended purchase was not
Santa Barbara County; J. W'. Tunggart, Judge. rather a scheme to aid the seller of the goods
Action by the Brookshire (il Company than an engagement in ordinary trade. When,
against the Casmalia Ranch Oil & Develop
Defendant comin connection with this, it is remembered
ment Company and others. that the business of the seller was hardly
pany appeals from an order denying its inolegitimate that it was, in fact, little better
tion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Af
firmed. than obtaining money by false pretensesit is rather too much to say there is no evi W. Il. Chapman and Henley C. Booth, for dence from which the jury could rightfully appellant. Richards & Carrier and McD. R. draw the conclusion that the bank official did Venable, for respondent. not testify truthfully in his direct statement.
MCFARLAND, J. This is an appeal by The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury,
the defendant the Casmalia Ranch Oil & and the challenge was properly denied. It is next assigneil that the court erred in
Development Company from an order of the
superior court denying said defendant's moadmitting, over the objection of the appellant, evidence relating to the representations of
tion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The
injunction was issued upon the complaint in the traveling salesman of the Puritan Vanufacturing Company. But this was a neces
the action, and the motion to dissolve was
based entirely upon the complaint and the sary part of the respondent's case. They were obligat:" to show the condition on
answer of the defendant filed to the com
plaint. No showing was made on the mowhich they urchased the goods, in order to show a failure of consideration. This eri.
tion other than what appeared on the face
of the said pleadings. cenie was directly in point for that purpose.
It is averred in the complaint, which was The written order, which the appellant urges
fileil March 2, 1990., that on February 24, represents the entire contract, was at hest
190.7, and for more than 30 days prior there. obscure, and subject to interpretation. The
! to, plaintiff was the owner and in the peace. interpretation: put thereon by the salesman
able possession of an easement and privilege to indue al sale could be properly put in
granted to it by the owner of certain lands evidence to show a failure of consideration.
subject to said esement "to construct and The testimony of the witness Iloyt as to a
maintain a pipe line for the conduct of oil" similar translation with the appellant bank
from certain oil lands in the vicinity owned Was admissible as tonding to show knowledge
by plaintiff across the saill lanıls subject to on the part of the bank of the character of
said casement to a certain station on the the paper they were purchasing from the
Southern Pacific Railroad, and, being in the Puritan mufacturing Company.
leaceable possession of said easement and The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
privilege, the plaintiff prior to February 24.
190.), had constructed a line of oil pipes four IIAISLEY, C. J., and MOUNT and CROW, inches in diameter across the said lands; JJ., concur.
that on said February 21, 1905, in the ab
sence of plaintiff and its officers and agents, on December 2, 1899, duly recorded in Book the defendants wrongfully, maliciously, and 2 of Leases in the office of the recorder of without any right whatever tore up about Santa Barbara county, in which county said 4,000 feet of said pipe, and mutilated and land is situated, and has ever since remained rendered the same useless; and that, by rea a record in said office; and that afterwards, son of said acts, plaintiff suffered actual on December 2, 1899, the said Morehouse and damage on account of pipe destroyed in the others, parties of the second part to said sum of $2,500, and damage by loss incident instrument, by a written instrument executto the prevention of the conduct of oil from ed, acknowledged and duly recorded, assignthe oil lands of plaintiff to said railroad ed to defendants herein, the said Casmalia station in the sum of $3,000. It is also ex Company, all the right, title, and interest pressly averred that in doing these acts de.
which said Morehouse and others had by fendants were guilty of oppression and mal
virtue of said instrument of February 25, ice, and that they did said acts with in
1899, which is called a "lease." tent to wantonly, oppressively, etc., prevent
It is contended by appellant that said inplaintiff in the exercise of his said ease
strument of February 25, 1899, vested the ment, and that plaintiff was entitled to
lessces therein named with full possession of receive as vindictive damages the further
all the surface of the Arellanes rancho, so
that neither the lessor nor any other person sum of $10,000. It is also averred that defendants threaten to, and will, if not re
could enter upon any part thereof without strained by the court, prevent plaintiff by
the consent of the said lessees except as force from relaying and re-establishing its
trespassers, and that, therefore, the plain
tiff herein could not subsequently to the exsaid pipe line and easement during the pen
ecution of said lease acquire the easement (lency of this action, that said line is es.
asserted in the complaint, or any right or sential to the continuance of the market
privilege whatever in said land adverse to ing of the oil products from plaintiff's land
appellant. Respondent contends that this which are constantly being produced from
lea se, on its face, gives to the lessees only wells thereon, and that the damage to plain
the right, for a term of years, to produce tiff from said wrongful acts will be irrepar
petroleum and other hydrocarbon substances able. The prayer is for damages in the sum
from said land, and to drill and operate oil of $17,500, and for a final injunction re
and gas wells thereon, and to use such part straining defendants from continuing said
of the land, and to lay and operate such pipe unlawful acts, and for a temporary injunc
lines, etc., and to have such rights of way, tion during the pendency of the action. Up
as should be necessary to carry on said busion this complaint, duly verified, the court
ness of producing oil, etc., from said land; granted the preliminary injunction enjoin
but did not give said lessees any possession ing defendants from preventing or in any
of any part of said land not used by them in way interfering with, the construction and
said business. We need not, however, exinaintenance of said pipe line, and from re
amine into this matter, because it goes only inoving any part of the same until further
to the question of title which is to be deorder in the premises.
termined on the final decision of the case on In the answer the ownership and posses
its merits, and not to the propriety of the sion of the alleged easement is denied; and
refusal of the court to dissolve the temporary it is also denied that defendants "wantonly,
injunction. The verified averments of the commaliciously, and oppressively” tore up the plaint show a clear case for the equitable inoil pipe as alleged in the complaint, but it
terposition of the court by a preliminary inis not denied, and is admitted, that defend
junction. The answer does not in any way ants did actually tear up said pipe, etc., and
change the basis upon which rested the equiit is not denied that defendants will prevent
table considerations which led the court to plaintiff from relaying said line. There are
grant the injunction. The answer merely also denials of the amount and the irrepar raises the issue of the ultimate title and propable nature of the damages suffered, and of
erty rights of the parties in the premises insome other of tbe averments of the com
volved in the action. It does not deny the plaint. It is also averred-and appellant re facts upon which the equitable right to an inlies greatly on this averment—that on No
junction pending the determination of the isvember 25, 1897, George B. Arellanes was the
sue of title rested. It does not show that owner in fee of a certain tract of land, which plaintiff, if it should finally prevail in the acmay be called for brevity the "Juan Arel tion, would not be irreparably damaged by the lanes Rancho"; that this is the land which acts of appellant which are temporarily enplaintiff claims to be subject to its alleged joined. A court will sometimes hesitate to pipe line easement; that on said November grant a preliminary injunction, eren upon 23, 1899, Arellanes, as party of the first part, a strong showing of the plaintiff, when it executed to C. C. Morehouse and others, as appears that the injunction may seriously parties of the second part, a certain written injure or disturb the use of the property or instrument, of which a copy is attached to possession of the defendant; but there is no the answer marked "Exhibit A"; that this consideration of that kind in the case at bar. instrument was duly acknowledged and was It nowhere appears that, even if appellant
should finally prepail, the continuance by plaintiff of the use of the pipe line during the pendency of the action would be any serious detriment to appellant, or would in any material way interfere with the exercise of whatever rights in the premises appellant has by virtue of said lease, or that it obstructs appellant in anything it has done, or has to do, in carrying out its right of prospecting for and taking oil, etc., from said land. On the other hand, if respondent should finally prevail, it is apparent that, in the absence of the preliminary injunction, it would have unjustly suffered great and irreparable damages. We think that the case presents an exceedingly proper one for the employınent of the aid of a preliminary injunction, and that no reason appears for disturbing the ruling of the court in refusing to dissolve it.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
bim to declare the whole debt due on default in payment of interest until by some outward act: beyond a mere mental determination or a direction to his own agents he has manifested an election.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 35, Mortgages, $ 1209.] 6. SAME-PLEADING.
Where the complaint in a foreclosure ac tion alleges that the plaintiffs "elect" to declare the whole debt due for default in payment of interest, proof may not be made of an election made before the commencement of the action.
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Trinity County; James W. Bartlett, Judge.
Action by the Trinity County Bank and another against F. G. Haas and others. De fendants appeal from a decree foreclosing a mortgage and from an order denying a new trial. Reversed and remanded.
William C. Bissell, for appellants. D. J. Hall and H. R. Given, for respondents.
We concur: SHAW, J.; LORIGAN, J.; ANGELLOTTI, J.; SLOSS, J.; HENSHAW, J.
( !51 Cal. 553) TRINITY COUNTY BANK et al. v. HAAS
et al. (Sac. 1,463.) (Supreme Court of California. July 26, 1907.) 1. MORTGAGE — CONSTRUCTION -NONPAYMENT OF INTEREST—PROVISION FOR FORECLOSURE.
A note and mortgage, being parts of one transaction, are to be read together, and the mortgagee may rely on the provision in the mortgage making the principal due for nonpayment of interest at his option, though the note contains no such provision.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 33, Mortgages, $8 214, 215.] 2. SAME-DEFAULT--NOTICE OF ELECTION TO FORECLOSE-NECESSITY.
Where a mortgage provides that, on default in payment of interest, at the mortgagee's option the whole debt shall become due, the mortgagee need not, before commencing a foreclosure action, notify the defaulting mortgagor of his election to declare the principal due.
[Ed. Note.--For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 35, Mortgages, $ 1209.) 3. SAME.
Where a mortgage provides that, on default in payment of interest, at the mortgagee's option the whole debt shall become due, the principal suin does not become due ipso facto upon default in interest payment, but the clause gives the mortgagee a mere option which he may take or waive, and the option is lost if before it has been exercised the mortgagor pays or offers to pay the overdue interest.
[Ed. Note.--For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 35, Mortgages, 1209.] 4. PAYMENT – DEPOSIT IN BANK FOR CREDITOR.
Under the express terms of Civ. Code, $ 1500, where a mortgagor's tender of interest was refused, a deposit in a bank of good repute of the amount to the mortgagee's credit, with notice thereof to the mortgagee, amounted to payment of the interest.
[Ed. Yote.--For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Payment, $ 24.] 5. SAME-ELECTION TO DECLARE DEBT DUESUFFICIENCY.
A mortgagee cannot be held to have exercised an option under the mortgage entitling
SLOSS, J. The defendants appeal from a decree foreclosing a mortgage, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
On January 11, 1901, the defendants F. G. Haas and Emily E. Haas made and delivered to plaintiffs their promissory note for $5,969.73, payable one year after date, with interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent. per month from date until paid, said interest payable quarterly, and, if not so paid when due, to be added to the principal and to bear interest at the same rate as the principal sum. On the following day said defendants executed and delivered to plaintiffs a mortgage of real property to secure their note. The mortgage provided that, "in case default be made in the payment of the said principal or any installment of interest as provided, then the whole sum of principal and interest shall be due at the option of the said parties of the second part (the payees), or assigns.” On September 6, 1904, the defendants F. G. and Emily E. Haas conveyed to the defendant Joseph Elliott the greater part of the mortgaged premises, Elliott assuming the payment of the mortgage debt.
The first installment of interest, payable on April 11, 1904, was paid when due. This action was commenced October 17, 1904, the plaintiffs alleging in their complaint that no further interest had been paid, and "default having been made in the payment of the sum of interest due July 11th, 1904, plaintiffs, in accordance with the terms of said mortgage, elect to declare the whole of said principal sum and interest thereon from April 11th, 1901, now due and payable.” The answers allege that all interest due upon said note or by said mortgage “has been heretofore paid, and that the principal sum of said note and mortgage is not yet due." The court found against the plea of payment, found that plaintiffs bad, on or about the 3d day of October, 1904, elected to declare the principal and interest due, and, as has been stated,