Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
HERHOLD v. UPTON, 1876 — 154 U.S. 624 · caselaw · US
General
HERHOLD v. UPTON
154 U.S. 62423 L. Ed. 892·Supreme Court of the United States·1876
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HERHOLD v. UPTON.
ERROE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 125.
Submitted November 29, 1876.
Decided December 4, 1876.
Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; and Webster v. Upton, 91. U. S. 65, followed.
Mr. E. A. Otis for plaintiff in error.
Mr. L. H. Boutell for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The principles decided in Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; and Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, are conclusive of this case. The judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore, affirmed upon the authority of those cases. If the stock held by Herhold is part of the increased capital, he is estopped by his acceptance of the certificate from denying the regularity of the proceedings under which the increase was effected. If it is part .of the original stock, his liability exists whether the increase was made or not. In either event the testimony offered to show that he did not sign the assent to the increase of the capital stock, filed with the auditor of public accounts, was immaterial and properly excluded. Affirmed.