151 N.Y.S. 624 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1915
Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, in an action wherein three separate actions were consolidated, the relief prayed for being: First. The cancellation as void of certain stock issued by the defendant corporation to the defendant Jarvis. Second. An accounting between the defendant company and the plaintiff, and compelling the defendant Jarvis to repay to the company certain dividends paid to him. Third. To impress a trust on certain moneys and securities paid by the company to Jarvis as a dividend.
J arvis and Conklin originally became associated in business about 1880, in the West, Conklin (who was a bookkeeper) being then in charge of the other’s business. Thereafter they both interested themselves in the Jarvis & Conklin Mortgage and Trust Company, a corporation, whereof Jarvis was president and Conklin secretary, the latter having immediate charge of the bookkeeping and accounting end of its affairs, as he generally had in their subsequent associated enterprises. Later on they came to New York city and organized the North American Trust Company, whereof Jarvis was president and Conklin vice-president. In July, 1888, Jarvis, who had resigned the presidency of the trust company in order that one Trenholm might be elected to the place, and who had become vice-president instead (a similar position to that occupied by Conklin), was offered the fiscal agency of the United States in Cuba by the President of the United States, but asked that, instead, it he given to the company wherein he occupied an official position, which was done upon his promise to personally establish such agency there. At this time plaintiff was in Europe. J arvis then established branches at Santiago and Havana to conduct the fiscal affairs of the government, and had the business well started when plaintiff returned from abroad. Both the parties
But a change in the tide of affairs of the company occurred when Jarvis, who now owns ninety-nine per cent of the construction company stock, succeeded in making an arrangement with the Cuban Telephone Company by which the construction company was relieved from its contract; further losses thereunder ended, and it was reimbursed all it had expended upon the construction work with a commission of fifteen per cent thereon, the telephone company assuming all the obligations for construction of the construction company, and delivering its promissory notes to the construction company to the amount of $664,000. After this settlement had been made Jarvis and Conklin were repaid the entire indebtedness still owing to them from the construction company, and there being
We deem it unnecessary to discuss any other issues raised in this case, considering the foregoing conclusive of the result. Every right that the plaintiff had under the doctrine laid down in Stokes v. Continental Trust Company (186 N. Y. 285) was afforded him, and a stockholder cannot complain if, after having been given a chance to get his proportion of an additional issue of stock on the same terms as others interested, he is unwilling to risk more" money in the venture and prefers to let the others interested take their chances on ultimate success. Plaintiff may have exercised good business judgment in not availing himself of his chance to buy his share of these stocks at the time it was offered to him. It was not until the fortunate settlement with the telephone company, in May, 1912, made the construction company a source of great wealth that he regretted his decision. For such mistakes in judgment the courts can offer no relief. The language used in Dusenberry v. Sagamore Development Company (164 App. Div. 573) is applicable to the present case: “This complaint is not of an opportunity denied, but rather of an opportunity overlooked, and the grievance does not seem to arise over a lost investment but rather over the power of control over the corporation gained by others more vigilant. ”
The judgment appealed from will be affirmed, with costs.
Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.