63 F. 749 | 7th Cir. | 1894
This suit was brought by Herman J. Huiskamp, Henry C. Huiskamp, John N. Irwin, George D. Rand, and Cyrus E. Phillips, citizens of Iowa, and John Williamson, a citizen of New York, against the- appellant, James J. West, and others, citizens of Illinois, for the purpose of obtaining a decree which should determine the ownership of the stock of the Chicago Times Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, direct the cancellation of illegal stock, and, pending the suit, enjoin the defendants against transferring or assigning stock, and against interfering with the publication or management of the newspapers kno wn as the Chicago Times and the Chicago Mail. The averments of the bill are numerous and prolix, but the substance is that the complainants, together with E. M. Irwin and M. M. Phillips, are owners of shares of stock in the Chicago Times Company, in amounts stated, aggregating nearly 3,000 shares out of a total of 10,000. shares; that on the 1st day of December, 1887, the estate of Wilbur F. Storey, including the Chicago Times, was in the possession of Horace A. Hurlbut, as receiver, who in that capacity was conducting the publication of that paper; that about that time the complainants, with West and Clinton A. Snowden, “for the purpose of obtaining such publication, known as the Chicago Times, entered into an arrangement or agreement whereby West and Snowden were to become
The prayer of the bill is for a decree finding what stock is fraudulent and void, and ordering a cancellation thereof, and that complainants be declared to be the only purchasers and owners of the Storey estate and of the capital stock of the Times Company purchased by the transfer of the estate to the company, etc.
West answered, controverting largely the averments of the bill, and filed a cross bill, seeking affirmative relief, chiefly against an unauthorized sale to the complainants of the 5,001 shares of stock which had been pledged to Ream.
To the cross bill the complainants answered, reaffirming in substance the averments of the bill, and admitting the sale to themselves of the pledged stock without previous demand on West for payment of the debt. There was the usual replication to the answers to the bill and cross bill, respectively. The circuit court entered a finding for the complainants in substantial conformity with the bill, and, further, that West represented to the complainants that “the boulevard lot” was a small building lot worth only from ten to twelve thousand dollars, and plaintiffs, knowing nothing of its value, and believing the representation true, consented that West should retain the lot as compensation for his services in negotiating the purchase of the Storey estate, when in fact the lot was worth |50,000, less an incumbrance of $12,500; and accordingly the court decreed that the complainants and their assignees are the owners and holders of 3,000 shares of the capital stock of the Chicago Times Company;' that the entire issue of 5,001 shares, represented by certificates numbered 11 and 23, was illegal, and should be canceled, subject to the rights of the purchasers of the note for which the stock was pledged, and that West has no title or interest therein; that West, by his fraudulent conduct towards the complainants and his associates in the purchase of the Storey estate, and in the organization and management of the Chicago Times Company, has
The evidence in the record being too voluminous, and the discussions of counsel too elaborate, to admit of detailed review, or even synopsis, we shall make only a. brief statement of our views and conclusions. We are of opinion that in important"particulars this decree' is erroneous.
If it were true, as the bill charges, that West made to the complainants a false statement of the value of his property, the fraud; upon discovery, might doubtless have been made cause for a rescission of the contract of the parnés, or, after the Times Company was organized, for the -winding up of the affairs of that company, but in respect to the issues of this case the alleged misrepresentation seems to be quite immaterial and irrelevant. It in no manner affects the question either of the validity or ownership of shares in the capital stock of the Chicago Times Company. It is clear, too, that the complainants were not materially deceived or misled by any representation which West is accused of having made. In order to prove the alleged representation false, it is insisted in one of the briefs for the appellees that West’s letters to John N. Irwin, written on and before the 10th of Xovember,-1887, “establish the fact that he was hard pressed for money, and could not have been worth §365,000, as he stated to Huiskamp and Irwin, or §200,000, as he now claims.” Irwin therefore had notice of West’s embarrassed condition, and his relation to his associates was such that notice to him was notice to them.
In respect to the boulevard lot, the finding of the court goes beyond the averment of the bill, which is simply that “West retained a tract of land of the value of about §50,000.” 'No fraud, misrepresentation mistake, concealment, or breach of trust by West, nor lack of knowledge on the part of complainants, is alleged, and the proof is that the lot was retained by West with the consent of complainants, iio cause of action in this particular is alleged in the bill, and none is proven. The complainants neither had nor expected to acquire an interest in the Storey estate, as such, or in West’s contract of purchase. Their aim, from the first to the end of the negotiation, was to obtain, as they did, an interest in the proposed Chicago Times Company, owning the Times newspaper, presses, etc., and the Times building, and not other parts of the Storey estate. To enable West to complete his purchase, they advanced him money, for which they were to have, and afterwards received, credit on the price of their shares of stock in the company which was organized. They took receipts from West showing that the moneys they advanced were to be applied “on purchase of the Storey estate,” “to the purchase of the Chicago Times and the Storey estate,” and, in one in
It remains to consider what were the rights of West in the capital stock of the Chicago Times Company. The controlling facts are few, and admit of little dispute. The contract of West and Snowden with the widow and heirs for the purchase of the Storey estate was made on the 29th of October, 1887. There had been previous negotiations between West and Irwin, looking to the taking of an interest in the purchase by the latter and his friends; but no definite or binding agreement in that direction was reached before the 17th of December ensuing, when West and Snowden signed and delivered to Henry C. Huiskamp the writing of that date, which, signatures omitted, is of the following tenor:
“We, the undersigned, owners of contracts now existing for the conveyance of the Chicago Times, hereby agree to organize a company under the name and title of the Chicago Times Company (notice of incorporation of said coinpafiy having already been given)' on the following basis: Seven-tenths (7/10) of the stock to be owned by James J. West and C. A. Snowden,’ of Chicago, and three-tenths (3/10) by the following named parties collectively: John N. Irwin, C. E. Phillips, George Rand, H. C. Huiskamp, and H. J. Huiskamp, all of Keokuk, Iowa, and John Williamson, of New York. And it is further hereby agreed by all parties herein named that the stock of the Times Company shall be issued only for the amount actually paid in by each stockholder at the rate of eighty-five dollars ($85) per share, and that the residue of the stock of said company, if there be any, shall, after all debts have been paid by the company, be distributed and paid in the following proportion: James J. West and C. A. Snowden, seven-tenths (7/10) and John N. Irwin, O. E. Phillips, H. C. Huiskamp, H. J. Huiskamp, and George Rand, of Keokuk, Iowa, and John Williamson, of New York, three-tenths (3/10) of same.”
Until accepted or acted upon by the complainants, that writing perhaps amounted to no more than a proposition on the part of the signers; but it was accepted and.acted upon, as the evidence shows, except that it having been determined afterwards that a mortgage for $145,000 upon the Times building should not be paid off, but should be carried by the Times Company, the price of the stock to be issued was reduced from $85 to $70 per share; and on that basis the complainants, having- advanced $172,500 cash, and owning Mail stock to the amount of $37,500, which seems to have been treated as cash, were entitled to receive, and did receive, for the whole sum of $210,000, 3,000 shares of stock. Deducting $10,000, which, according to the testimony of West, was the price of the boulevard lot, the property of the Storey estate, which on December 24, 1887, was conveyed to West, and which on the ensuing January 5th he conveyed to the Chicago Times Company in consideration of 8,500 shares of stock, of which 1,000 shares were issued to Snowden and 7,499 shares to West, cost $380,000, of which, after deducting $172,-500 furnished by complainants, there remained $207,500, for which, by the agreement of December 17th, West was entitled to credit,
It is no objection to West’s title to stock issued in consideration of the property turned over to the company that, he obtained the property on a credit, and had not paid for it; and if afterwards, in breach of his trust as president and ¡manager, he used the money of the company to pay the debts so incurred, he became thereby indebted to the company. And, by reason of the trust relation, it has been suggested that the company became entitled to a lien upon the stock for its reimbursement; but it is not, true, as contended by the complainants, that they became sole owners of stock, or their shares the only valid shares, on the theory that they alone had paid what was paid for the property which was transferred.by West to the company, and for which the company’s stock was issued. They bargained for three-tenths of the stock, and that they got; and if, by reason of West’s misappropriation of the moneys of the company during the year and a half of his management, the value of their stock has been impaired, it does not; follow that West’s stock, in so far as it was valid when issued, should be annulled or declared void.
We have not attempted t;o determine the exact rights of the parties in any particular. There should he a reference to a master for that purpose. To the extent that West has issued illegal stock, or has appropriated stock without paying for it, or has failed to surrender shares under his agreement to surrender them for cancellation at 60 cents on the dollar or otherwise', the court may, on a proper finding of the facts, decree a cancellation of shares which stand in West’s name, or were; issued to him, saving the rights of innocent purchasers; but there should be no such cancellation on the ground merely of misappropriation by West of the moneys or credits of the company during the term of his presidency and management.
The decree below is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for reference, on the proofs in the record, to a master, who shall report his conclusions of fact and law upon the several matters in dispute.