TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coppinger v. Lewiston Terminal Co.

STEPHEN A. COPPINGER v. LEWISTON TERMINAL CO., LEWISTON-CLARKSTON TRANSIT CO.

Coppinger v. Lewiston Terminal Co., 203 P. 1068 (Idaho 1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1921
Judges
Budge, Dunn, Lee, McCarthy, Rice
Citations
203 P. 106834 Idaho 5981921 Ida. LEXIS 150
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Corporation — Capital Stook — Distribution. No distribution of the capital stock can be made to the stockholders of a corporation until the debts, if any, of such corporation have been paid.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, for Nez Perce County. Hon. W. N. Scales, Judge. Action by stockholders to compel the issuance to them of certificates of stock. The terminal company, having sold and transferred all its corporate property and franchise to construct and operate a street-car railway system, has abandoned the purpose for which it was organized, and the preferred capital stock received in full payment therefor should be distributed ratably among its stockholders who are willing to accept their pro rata shares of said stock. (Sec. 667, Cook on Stock and Stockholders, 2d ed.; Kohl v. Lilienthal, 81 Cal. 378, 20 Pac. 401, 22 Pac. 689, 6 L. R. A. 520; Buford v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 3 Mo. App. 159; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 130; Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 93; 10 Cyc. 1300; Treadwell v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 7 Gray (Mass.), 393, 66 Am. Dee. 490.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dunn

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DUNN, J.

The Lewiston Terminal Company was incorporated in March, 1909, with an authorized capital stock of $100,000, with shares of the par value of $100, for the purpose of building and operating a street railway system in the city of Lewiston. Shares in said company were sold and fully paid to the amount of $45,051.23 and said Terminal Company operated street-car lines in said city until about the first of May, 1915, when it sold and transferred all of its street railway properties and franchises to the Lewiston-Clarkston Transit Company, receiving therefor 400 shares of preferred stock of said transit company of the par value of $40,000.

This action was brought by appellant Coppinger on behalf of himself and about thirty other stockholders in said terminal company to compel the issuance to them of certificates of stock in said terminal company according to their several interests and to compel said transit company to issue to said parties preferred stock in said transit company in such amounts as their stock in the terminal company might entitle them to receive out of the 400 shares of preferred stock in the transit company issued to said terminal company as the purchase price of the property and franchises of the terminal company. In other words, it was the pur *600 pose of this action to compel the terminal company to distribute its capital stock to its stockholders, said 400 shares of preferred stock being the sole asset of said terminal company.

On the trial of the case the district court entered its decree dismissing the action as to all defendants except Lewiston Terminal Company and ordered that the officers of said terminal company deliver shares of stock in said company to the several stockholders thereof who had fully paid therefor as and when such stockholders should make application for such delivery.

Many errors are assigned by appellants, but we think it unnecessary to examine them. The complaint clearly fails to state a cause of action for the distribution of said 400 shares of transit company preferred stock. If appellants are entitled to any portion thereof, which we do not decide, they would be entitled only to their proportion after the payment of the debts, if any, of the terminal company. To distribute them otherwise is forbidden by the law of this state. (C. S., sec. 4715; Weil v. Defenbach, 31 Ida. 258 , 170 Pac. 103 .)

The relief granted to appellant and his associates in this action was all that they were entitled to under their complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents.

Rice, C. J., and Budge, McCarthy and Lee, JJ., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Weil v. Defenbach, 170 P. 103 (Idaho 1918) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list