Ogilvie v. Knox Insurance Co.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. The complainants in this case are judgment creditors of the Knox Insurance Company. The numerous other defendants are stockholders of the company, and are severally charged as debtors to it, for the unpaid portion of the stock subscribed by them. The company is insolvent, or at least is unable to pay its creditors, without calling in the capital subscribed and secured, but not actually paid in cash. This it has fajled or refused to do. This bill is filed to compel These stockholders or debtors to the corporation to pay the amount of their debts, in order that, the creditors of the company may obtain satisfaction. , The bill was taken pro confesso as against the corporation. The other defendants, being corporators, are consequently concluded as to the averments of the 'bill affecting them as such. As stockholders who have not paid in the whole amount, of the stock subscribed and owned by them,, they stand in the relation of debtors to the corporation for the several amounts due by each of them. As to them, this bill is in the nature of an- attachment, in which they are called on to answer as garnishees of the principal debtor. Where a number of special partners are incorporated to carry on the business of insurance, the stock subscribed and owned by the several stockholders or partners constitutes the capital or fund publicly pledged to all who deal with them. Insurance companies or corporations, unless .they have the. privilege of using their capital for banking- purposes, seldom require the actual payment of it all in cash. Contracts of *388 insurance or indemnity, though not literally “gaming contracts,” are nevertheless in the nature of wagers against the happening of a certain event. The calculation of chances is greatly in favor of the insurer. In a large number of policies, it is but reasonable to expect that the amount of premiums will exceed that of the losses. The insured are thuo made to pay one another, and with common good fortune afford an overplus to make a dividend for the insurers. Hence the Knox Insurance Company, like others of the same description, did not require their stockholders to pay in cash more than ten per cent, of their several shares. They were allowed to retain the remaining ninety per cent, in their own possession, substituting therefor their bonds, or other securities. Thus every stockholder became a borrower from, and debtor to, the capital stock of the company. If in the course of events the chances were favorable, a dividend of twenty per cent, on capital would give a profit , of two hundred on the money actually paid out by them. On the contrary, if they were adverse, the capital represented by securities must necessarily be paid in to sátisfy the just debts of the company. The ninety per cent, retained by the stockholders is as much a part of the capital pledged as the cash actually paid in. When that portion of the capital represented by these securities is required to pay the creditors of the company, the stockholders cannot be allowed to refuse the payment of them, unless they show such an equity as would entitle them to a preference over the creditors, if the capital had been paid in cash. Let us now examine their defence,, and see if they have established such an equity. They do not deny that they paid the ten per cent,, gave their securities for the balance, and have received their certificates for their several shares of stock; but they contend that they are not bound to pay these securities, because, the agent of the corporation, who took the subscriptions of stock, made certain representations concerning the state of the affairs of the corporation, which were not true; and, as a consequence thereof, they are not bound to pay these securities. *389 The numerous defendants, with some immaterial variations and qualifications, adopt the answer of their co-defendant, Collum, which we shall give verbatim, from the record, to show we have not misstated or mistaken the nature of the defence set up. “And, by way of defence to said suit, said Collum alleges that just before he gave said note, accepted said first bill, Robert N. Carnan, an agent of said insurance company, came to Jeffersonville to procure persons there to give notes and bills for stock in said insurance company;' and in order to induce said Collum to give his said note,- and accept said first bill for-such stock, said Carnan, as such agent, then and there falsely and fraudulently said and repi*esented to said Collum, and in his hearing, that stock in said insurance company to the amount of seventy-five dollars had then been subscribed for at Vincennes, and on the Wabash river, and all of said amount had then been paid or secured as the charter of said insurance company required. Said Collum did not then know, nor then have the means of knowing, to the contrary of said representations, and he fully believed them to be true, and with that belief he gave his said note, and accepted said two bills for stock in said insurance company; and if he had not fully believed said representations, he would not have given said note nor accepted said bills, or either of them. At the time said representations were so made, and said given and said first bill accepted, there had not been more than twenty-five thousand dollars of stock in. said insurance company subscribed for and paid and secured, as said charter required, at Vincennes, on the Wabash river, which said Car-nan then well knew. Saict Carnan also, at and just before said Collum made his said note and accepted his said first bill, represented to him that said insurance company then had $40,000 of funds on hand, mostly in Eastern exchange, which they could not dispose of at Vincennes, and they wished to get stockholders at Jeffersonville, so as to have an officer of said insurance company there, and they would then send those funds there to be sold and used. Said Collum did not then know, and had no means of knowing, to the contrary of said *390 representation, but he believed it, and it was a strong inducement with him to make his said note and accept his said bills; yet he is row informed and believes said representation was grossly ibise, and that said insurance company did not at that lime have and had not at any time had that sum or anything like that sum of money on hand, and mostly in Eastern exchange, which they could not dispose of at Vincennes.” Caiman, who was examined as a witness, denies the charges made in -this answer, and declares that he was not authorized by the company to make such representations, and did not make them. .To establish their defence, several of the defendants themselves were called as witnesses, alleging that, as their responsibility was several, and not joint, each one may be called as a witness for all the rest. Much of the argument of this ease, has been expended on the question of the competency of these witnesses to testify in their own .case ; but we do not think it necessary to decide it, as there are other facts in the case which show clearly that the matter pleaded cannot affect the relative rights of the parties in the case, assuming it to be true. Those who seek to set aside their solemn written contracts, by proving loose conversations, should be held to make out a very clear ease; and when they charge others with.fraud, founded on such evidence, their own conduct and acts (which speak louder than words) should be consistent with such a hypothesis. Assuming the fact that Oarnan did make the representations charged, what was the conduct of these Jeffersonville stockholders, who now seek to repudiate their contracts on the allegation of fraud ? After having a full opportunity to examine for themselves into the affairs of the company, they alleged no fraud, nor expressed any desire to withdraw their subscriptions; on the contrary, when fully informed that the amount of stock subscribed at Vincennes did not equal that taken at Jeffersonville, and when an offer was made to increase the Vincennes subscriptions, so as to equal those at Jeffersonville, the defendants and those who acted with them objected, and insisted that the .lower the amount of stock the *391 higher would be the dividend, and consequently it had better not be increased till after the first dividend of twenty-five per cent, had been made. 2.' After the defendants had .a full opportunity to know the situation of the company, its funds and its property, they organized at Jeffersonville a branch of the corporation, having resident directors at that place. This board met from time to time, through the months of April, May, June, July, and up to 13th August, 1850. While there was a prospect of a dividend of 250 per cent, on the amount of cash paid in, their eyes were shut to the deceit supposed to have been practiced on them. In the month of May, a fire at Owensville, Kentucky, was reported, in which the company lost about §50,000. This seemed to injure the prospect of the large dividend; yet even then it was not so clearly perceived that the defendants were defrauded. The directors at Jeffersonville, who represented their interests, continued to meet till the middle of August, and'till .a succession of losses made it apparent that the capital of the company would be nearly all required to pay for the losses incurred. When these facts became patent, the directors at Jeffersonville, at their last meeting in August, “ after taking time to consider what was best to be done,” concluded to consider themselves defrauded, and withdraw their capital from the company. We need not cite authorities to show that this discovery was made too late, and that a court of equity cannot receive such a pretence as a valid defence against the creditors of this corporation. II. The objection made to the bill for want of proper parties is equally untenable. The creditors of the corporation arc seeking satisfaction out of the assets of the company to which the defendants are debtors. If the debts attached are sufficient to pay their demands, the creditors need look no further. They are not bound to settle up all the affairs of this corporation, and the equities between its various stockholders or partners, corporators or debtors. If A is bound to pay his debt to the corporation, in order to satisfy its creditors, he cannot *392 defend himself by pleading that these complainants might have got' their satisfaction out of B quite as well. It is true, if it be necessary to a complete satisfaction to the complainants that the corporation be treated as an insolvent, the court may appoint a receiver, with authority to collect and receive all the debts due to the company, and administer all its assets. In this way, all the other stockholders or debtors may be made to contribute. For these reasons, we are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit • Court should be reversed, with costs, and that the record be remanded, with instructions to that court to enter a decree for the complainants against the respondents severally, for such amount as it shall appear was due and unpaid by each of them On their shares of the capital stock of the Knox Insurance Company, and to have such other and further proceedings as to justice and right may appertain.