Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ind. 299

Bish v. Johnson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1863

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1863-11-15

<p>Railroads — Contract.—Subscriptions to the capital stock of railroad companies, made since the taking effect of the act of February 23, 1853, authorizing the consolidation of such companies, will not be discharged or invalidated by the subsequent consolidation of the company in which they are made, but they will be held to have been made with reference to said law.</p>

Relies on McCray v. Junction Railroad · Booe v. Junction Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1977

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

20186318701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1In this case proceedings supplementary to execution were instituted by appellants against the Cincinnati and Chicago Railroad Company and the Cincinnati, Newcastle and Michigan Railroad Company, and also against said appellee, to subject to the payment of judgments obtained by the appellants against said corporations, the proceeds of certain stock subscriptions made by said Johnson to the capital stock of the latter company, and remaining unpaid.

¶2It is averred that the said subscription was made in March, 1853; that in April, 1854, said company last above named consolidated with the Cincinnati, Cambridge and Chicago Short Line Railroad Company, under the name first above set forth, and that afterwards, in 1854, said company and the Cincinnati, Logansport and Chicago Railroad Company consolidated under the name first above set forth.

¶3These facts appear in the complaint. An answer was filed by said Johnson, the second paragraph of which avers that the judgments, of which payment is sought, were obtained after said consolidations, and that said consolidations were “made against his wishes and consent.” A demurrer was Overruled to said second paragraph of the answer, which presents the only point in the case. This subscription was made after the act of February 23, 1853, authorizing the consolidation of railroad companies, and consequently must be viewed as having been made with reference to the said authority so *300conferred upon said corporations. Previous to the passage of said act it had been repeatedly held that a consolidation, without the consent of the stockholder, released him, &c. McCray v. The Junction Railroad Company, 9 Ind. 358; Booe v. The Same, 10 Ind. 93.

J. Brownlee, for the appellants.

¶4The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.

/21/ind/299 · .json · Public domain