Wilbur v. Hough
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Grady v. City of Livingston (Mont. 1943)
- Graves v. Mono Lake Hydraulic Mining Co. (Cal. 1889)
- Burnes v. Burnes (8th Cir. 1905)
- Wallace v. Oceanic Packing Co. (Wash. 1901)
- In re Disbarment of Evans & Rogers ex rel. Nelson (Utah 1900)
- Porter v. Winona & Dakota Grain Co. (Minn. 1899)
- Doe v. Northwestern Coal & Transportation Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon 1896)
- Santa Ana Water Co. v. Town of San Buenaventura (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1895)
- Wickersham v. Crittenden (Cal. 1892)
- Smith v. Los Angeles Immigration & Land Co-operative Ass'n (Cal. 1889)
- Hope v. Valley City Salt Co. (W. Va. 1885)
- Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 1885)
- Union Trust Co. of New York v. Nevada & O. R. (United States Circuit Courts 1884)
- Bassett v. Monte Christo G. & S. M. Co. (Nev. 1880)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is alleged in the complaint that the Peoples’ Steam Navigation Company executed to the plaintiffs two promissory notes; that they remain due and unpaid; that the defendants became stockholders of said corporation—or “members of the said corporation,” as the complaint states —and that the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiffs a specified sum of money as their proportion of the indebtedness of the corporation. The defendants’ demurrer having been overruled, they answered, setting up the fact that at the time when the notes were made the plaintiffs were “the duly elected, qualified and acting trustees of said Peoples’ Steam Navigation Company.” The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs.
The case comes fully within the doctrine of San Diego v. San Diego and Los Angeles Railroad Company (44 Cal. 112), that the law will not permit one who acts in a fiduciary capacity to deal with himself in his individual capacity; and that express contracts thus made are contrary to public policy and void. The rule is not only sustainable on principle, but is supported by abundant authority.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Concurring Opinion
I concur in the judgment. The plaintiffs could not by executing promissory note's as trustees of the corporation to themselves as individuals,' create evidence which would prima facie establish an indebtedness against the coporation, and against each stockholder.
Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.