Obre v. Alban Tractor Co.
Maryland Court of Appeals
179 A.2d 861 (1962)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
F. Stevens Nelson and Henry Obre (plaintiff) formed the Annel Corporation (Annel). Nelson and Obre believed that $40,000 in capital was “entirely adequate for the foreseeable needs of the corporation.” Nelson invested $10,000 in equipment and cash and was issued voting common stock with a par value of $10,000. Obre invested $65,548.10 in equipment and cash. Because Obre and Nelson ultimately wanted equal ownership, Obre was issued voting common stock with a par value of $10,000, non-voting preferred stock with a par value of $20,000, and an unsecured note for the remaining $35,548.10. The debt was to be paid in five years with interest. Annel became insolvent. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County had equity jurisdiction over the deed of trust issued for Annel’s creditors. Obre filed four claims as a general creditor based on the note. The other creditors, including Alban Tractor Co. (defendant), objected to Obre’s claims on the ground that the amount in question was a risk capital investment not a debt. The chancellor concluded that the equipment Obre contributed was necessary to the business and the five-year note was evidence that the contribution was a risk capital investment. The chancellor subordinated Obre’s claims to those of the other creditors on equity grounds. Obre appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
