Osborn v. Jernegan
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Brookings v. Scudder (Mo. 1922)
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
This is an action on a promissory note, dated April 6, 1877, and payable on demand, given to the plaintiff, for five shares of stock in the Martha’s Vineyard Railroad Company. The defence is, that, when the note was given, it was agreed between the parties, that, upon a contingency which has now happened, the stock should be taken back and the note given up. The question is as to the construction of this agreement.
It appeared that the railroad company was then in failing circumstances. An execution had been levied on its property, and the defendant, as a creditor of the corporation, had an interest in preserving its property from sale cm. execution, and from proceedings in bankruptcy. A plan had been proposed for securing the creditors, and saving some interest in the property,
There was evidence tending to prove that, by the middle of April, the stockholders had all signed the agreement to surrender; that the creditors had signed the agreement prepared for them, and that the railroad corporation had assented to the proceedings, chosen the trustees; and promised to perform all that was required in the premises. The interest on the debts paid was reckoned up to May 1, and the new stock issued bore the same date; but the actual delivery of the stock, and the actual payments to the creditors, did not commence until June 20, and were mostly made in July, more than sixty days after the date of the note in suit and the agreement then made.
The plaintiff asked the court to rule, that, if nothing remained to be done but to transfer the stock, and pay the creditors according to the terms of the agreement between them, then the terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant had been complied with, and the plaintiff had a right to recover on the note.
The judge declined so to rule, and ruled that the legal interpretation of the agreement was, that the actual payment and the
Exceptions sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.