Hartzell v. Ebbvale Mining Co.
Hartzell v. Ebbvale Mining Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This suit was brought to recover the amount due on three promissory notes alleged to have been executed and delivered by the defendant corporation to plaintiff. The defense was that the notes were not executed as required by the by-laws of the corporation and that they were not given for corporate indebtedness. The case went to trial on the pleadings and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff.. The assignments of error relate to the admission and rejection of testimony and the instructions of the court at the time of the trial. Appellant is a foreign corporation incorporated in 1905 under the laws of the State of Maryland for the purpose of engaging in the business of mining clay. Prior to its incorporation this business was conducted by an individual in the trade name of the Findlay Mining Company, and no doubt the defendant corporation was organized for the purpose o.f vaking over the business which had been theretofore conducted as an individual enterprise. But in the present case we have to do with the corporation and not with the individual enterprise. The suit is brought against the corporation and the right to recover depends upon its liability to pay the notes in question. The by-law provides: “All contracts of the corporation shall be signed by the president, attested by the secretary, and sealed with the corporation seal, unless the board of directors or stockholders at regular meetings shall otherwise order to the contrary.” There is no evidence to show that this by-law was ever abrogated and for the purposes- of the present case it must be assumed to be in force. The notes in suit were not signed, attested and sealed as required by the by-law, and it is earnestly contended that failure to execute the notes in accordance with the requirements of the by-law relieves the corporation from liability thereon. As a general proposition of law this may be said to be a good defense, but it is subject to several exceptions which have become as well recognized as the rule itself. The
' We agree with the learned counsel for appellant that it was error to allow the introduction of testimony showing a course of dealing with the Findlay Mining Company for the purpose of affecting the rights of the parties to this suit. The Findlay Mining Company is not a party to the present litigation and what it may have done in a course of dealing with Hartzell cannot be regarded as in any way affecting the liability of the defendant corporation on the notes in suit. When the case is again tried it will be necessary to confine the offers of testimony tending to show a previous course of dealing to the period between the incorporation of appellant and the date of giving the notes. The corporation would be liable on these notes without reference to a previous course of dealing between the parties if it accepted the benefits of the contract and made use of the proceeds. The $500 note is on a little different basis and may require the introduction of testimony to explain the transaction and fix the liability of the corporation.
The first, second and third assignments of error are sustained. The fourth assignment is also sustained insofar as it relates to the Findlay Mining Company. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth assignments are overruled.
Judgment reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.
Reference
- Cited By
- 17 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Corporations — Promissory notes — By-laws—Course of dealing— Waiver — Estoppel—Evidence. 1. Where promissory notes are executed solely by the treasurer of a corporation, whose by-laws provide that such notes must bear the signature of both president and treasurer, and shall have the corporation seal affixed, which was not done, the defense of irregularity of issue is, as a general proposition, good. 2. Where, however, the corporation has received the benefit of the proceeds of such notes, although irregularly issued, or where there has been a course of dealing of the same irregular character between the same parties over a course of years, or where -the entire management and control of the corporation has been allowed to pass into the hands of the officer who executed the notes in its name, it may be estopped from denying liability, and a verdict for the amount of the notes based upon evidence to show these facts would be upheld. 3. Where in such case the proceeds of two promissory notes so issued by defendant corporation had been received and used by it in its business, it was properly held liable for the amount thereof. Where, however, the defendant corporation was sought to be charged with liability upon another promissory note so issued, where it did not appear that the proceeds thereof had been used in its business, it was error for the court to allow evidence to be introduced to show a course of dealing between the holder of the notes and the former owner of the business of the defendant corporation, it not appearing that.there was any connection between the defendant corporation and such former owner so as to bind defendant on account of any action of his.