Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 W. Va. 477

Applegate v. Wellsburg Banking & Trust Co.

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1910

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1910-12-20

<p>1. Specific Performance — Contracts Enforceable — Compelling Issuance of Proper Certificate of Stock.</p> <p>A subscriber to the capital stock of a private corporation, after having fully paid for his shares therein, may compel the issuance of a proper certificate for the same by a bill in equity for specific performance of the contract for the shares.</p> <p>2. Same — Subscription to Capital Stock — Actions to Compel Issu anee of Proper Certificate.</p> <p>The owner of such shares, holding a certificate in which the number thereof is erroneously designated in the margin!* by a figure, and in the body of which? the number is correctly written, may maintain such a bill to compel the issuance of a correct certificate, on the refusal of the corporation to recognize and treat the certificate as one for the correct number of shares and assertion of its claim that the certificate is one for the smaller number, indicated by such figure.</p> <p>3. Same — Subscription to StocTc — Issuance of Erroneous Certificate ■ — Action to Compel Corrections — Sufficiency of Bill.</p> <p>In such a bill, it suffices to allege ownership of the shares,-er. ror in the certificate, refusal to pay dividends on it as one for the correct number of shares, denial of its validity as a certificate for such number and assertion of a claim that it is one for the smaller number, erroneously indicated by the figure, and pray an adjudication of complainant’s right to the shares she owns and compulsion of issuance of a correct certificate therefor and payment of dividends.</p> <p>4. Same — Issuance of Certificate — Action to Compel Correction— Sufficiency of Bill.</p> <p>Inability of the corporation to issue the shares, in such case, is matter of defense which the bill need not negative.</p> <p>5. Same — Stoolc Certifícale — Suit to Compel Issuance of Correct Certificate — Laches.</p> <p>In the absence of any element of estoppel, disclosed by the bill, the admission of complainant’s right in the certificate excuses delay in the application for relief, due to ignorance of denial of that right.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1919

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and Remanded · Decided 1910-12-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Williams, Judge,

¶1(dissenting):

¶2I do not think plaintiff’s bill makes a case for equitable relief. It alleges that she is the holder of a certificate for ten shares of stock, and that defendant has paid dividends to her on only five shares. It does not allege that she has been denied any *483of her other rights, or privileges, as the holder of ten shares of the capital stock of defendant corporation. The word “ten” written in the body of the certificate takes precedence over the figure “5” in the margin, and constitutes it a good certificate for ten shares. Plaintiff prays for the issuance to her of “a proper certificate for said stock.” But her bill shows that she already holds such certificate. Her only other prayer, except for general relief, is, that she “may have a decree for all unpaid dividends upon said stock.” A court of law is adequate to give her this relief. Equity can not retain the cause to give general relief; because there are no allegations to warrant the granting of it. The lower court, I think, rightly sustained the demurrey to the bill, and, plaintiff declining to amend, properly dismissed it. I would affirm the decree.

/68/wva/477 · .json · Public domain