Schmidt v. Miller
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
The facts are, stated in the opinion of the court.
KERRIGAN, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff to recover from the defendants their proportionate share of an
[497]
alleged indebtedness of a corporation in which defendants were stockholders. Plaintiff recovered judgment imposing upon defendants a stockholder’s liability in the sum of $58,170.15, together with costs, and defendants appeal.
Four causes of action are set forth in the amended complaint. The first cause is predicated upon a promissory note by which the corporation promised to pay to plaintiff on demand the sum of $143,679.50. The second and third causes declare in
assumpsit
for the same amount, and by the fourth plaintiff claims that he laid out and expended for the use and benefit of the Trinity Asbestos Mining Company at the special instance and request of that corporation the sum of $3,017.03. By an amended answer defendants denied the indebtedness of the corporation, and denied that at the time the advances were made by plaintiff they were made pursuant to any promise to repay other than a promise that they should be repaid when the mine was developed and placed upon a paying basis. The execution of the note is admitted, and the amount thereof represents the result of an account stated. A portion of this sum was found by the trial court to be barred by subdivision 1 of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No contention is here made as to the correctness of the amount of the judgment, assuming a liability to exist.
The main contention urged upon this appeal for reversal is that the evidence shows plaintiff to be an associate in a joint adventure to carry out and effectuate the purposes of which all of the members thereof had organized a close corporation, and that under such circumstances one of such persons cannot obtain the advantage of a stockholder’s liability to the prejudice of his coadventurers.
[1]
We see no merit in this contention. From the evidence it appears that certain of the defendants discovered and located a number of asbestos mining claims in Trinity County, California. In order to develop this property defendants entered into negotiations with plaintiff and his brother, Peter Schmidt, which culminated in the formation of a corporation known as the Trinity Asbestos Mining Company, with a capital stock of 500,000 shares, 200,000 of which were allotted to plaintiff and his brother. Thereafter plaintiff advanced about $30,000 to dévelop the mine, a sum he had been assured would put the property on a pay
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)