CAROLINA BUGGY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THEO WILLIAMS ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carolina Buggy Manufacturing Company sued stockholders on a promissory note, claiming they were liable as stockholders when the note was given. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence that the defendants were stockholders at the time the note was executed.
The court held that the plaintiff made out a sufficient prima facie case of stockholder status. The evidence of the stockholder list dated February 1, 1907, combined with the president's testimony, established that defendants held stock on that date, and their status as stockholders was presumed to continue during the short two-month interval absent contrary proof that they had sold their stock during that specific period.
“It would seem clear that there was sufficient prima facie evidence that these defendants were stockholders on the first of February, 1907. This status is presumed to continue for the short interval of time in the absence of some proof to the contrary”
Establishes the court's holding that the evidence was sufficient and applies the presumption of continued stockholder status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarolina Buggy Manufacturing Company, a corporation, gave a promissory note and sued defendants Theo Williams and others to recover on it, claiming th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is an action upon a promissory note given by a corporation against certain alleged stockholders thereof, a partnership liability being claimed because the statute had not been complied with in regard to the affidavit by the treasurer as to payment on the stock. There was judgment for the defendants because the Circuit Judge who tried the cause without a jury, was of the opinion that the plaintiff had not proven that these defendants were stockholders when the note was given. In this we think he erred.
The plaintiff proved by .the president of its corporation that the book he held in his hands was the only record or book that was kept, that the list of names appear ing therein, the names of these defendants, is a list of the names of the stockholders of the corporation, but he did not know whether they owned stock when the note was given; some have sold their stock, but he did not know when. There, were no other books or minutes of the corporation kept that he knew of. The list of names bear date February 1, 1907, and the note was given about two months thereafter. This testimony was taken eight years thereafter. No objection was interposed to the introduction of the book in evidence, nor was any effort made to impeach its competency, and its evidentiary value was reinforced by the positive testimony of this sole witness in the case.
It would seem clear that there was sufficient prima facie evidence that these defendants were stockholders on the first of February, 1907. This status is presumed to continue for the short interval of time in the absence of some proof to the contrary, and we do. not think the broad statement that some have sold stock within a period of eight years is proof that all had sold their stock within the period of two months. Montgomery & Rood Co. v. Webb, 27 Ala. 618.
The plaintiff made out a prima facie case entitling it to relief, and the judgment is reversed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Mechanics & Metals Nat'l Bank of the City of N.Y. v. Angel, 79 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1920)…ers of a banking company when the company transacts business without authority from the Comptroller, the liability would be upon those who were stockholders at the time the indebtedness sued on was' incurred. See Carolina Buggy Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 71 Fla. 193, 70 South. Rep. 1006; 20 R. C. L. 985; Humphreys v. Drew, 59 Fla. 295, 52 South. Rep. 362; Heinberg Bros. v. Thompson, 47 Fla. 163, 37 South. Rep. 71. Other defendants are sought to be made jointly liable as partners and the court sustained demurrer…
-
Coleman v. State, 119 Fla. 653 (Fla. 1935)…t or title in and to the land is a tenant at sufferance. Brown v. Markham, 56 Fla. 202, 48 Sou. 39. Tenancy at sufferance is not based on contract. A tenant at sufferance has no estate or title but only naked possession without right. Camp v. Ellis, 71 Fla. 193, 70 Sou. 1006. In Baker v. Clifford-Mathews Inv. Co., 99 Fla. 1229, 128 Sou. 827, we said: “A tenancy at sufferance is said to exist where a person comes into possession of lands lawfully and after his estate has ended holds over wrongfully.” So…
-
Clayton v. Leypoldt, 249 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…nc., Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 87; Edgar v. Hosea, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 233; Ray v. Dock & Marine Construction, Inc., Fla. [*695] App.1966, 183 So. 2d 237; Gracy v. Fielding, 1916, 71 Fla. 1, 70 So. 625; Carolina Buggy Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 1916, 71 Fla. 193, 70 So. 1006; McCall v. Sherbill, Fla. 1953, 68 So. 2d 362; Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla. 1953, 66 So. 2d 684; English & American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 453, 457; and Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Be…