Citizens'& Marine Bank v. Mason
Decision Date | 21 October 1924 |
Docket Number | 2242.,No. 2232,2232 |
Citation | 2 F.2d 352 |
Parties | CITIZENS' & MARINE BANK OF NEWPORT NEWS, VA., et al. v. MASON (two cases). In re TAKA-KOLA BOTTLING CO., Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
R. M. Lett, of Newport News, Va. (T. Gray Haddon, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for petitioners and appellants.
W. J. Henson, of Roanoke, Va. (Jackson & Henson, of Roanoke, Va., and Alfred Anderson, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for respondent and appellee.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
These proceedings involve the validity of a lien for an indebtedness due appellee for supplies furnished the Taka-Kola Bottling Company, the bankrupt herein, to be used in its business, and for which it is claimed under the Virginia statute the appellee is entitled to a prior lien on the franchises, gross earnings, and real and personal property used in operating its plant, superior to that of the appellants and petitioners, who hold liens secured by trust deeds upon the bankrupt's property.
The supply lien was claimed under section 6438 of the Code of Virginia 1919, which at the time of furnishing the supplies was in effect, but which as to supplies furnished mining and manufacturing companies has since been repealed. Acts of Assembly Va. 1922, p. 13, February 11, 1922; Pollard's Supp. to Code of Virginia 1922, p. 489.
Appellants and petitioners assail the validity of the claim as one entitled to a lien, because the statute under which the same is sought is alleged to be unconstitutional, and because the bankrupt company is neither by its charter, nor in what it did, a manufacturing company within the meaning of the act.
The referee, upon full consideration of the questions raised, adjudged the lien to be invalid, and the holder thereof to be only an unsecured creditor against the bankrupt's estate. Upon application to the District Court to review the ruling of the referee, that court by its order entered on the 6th of March, 1924, reversed the action of the referee, and held that the section of the Code in question was invalid only as to deeds of trust executed prior to its date, and that the bankrupt company was a manufacturing company as defined by the act, and decreed in favor of the appellee as a preferred lienholder for the amount of its debt, and entitled to priority over the trust deeds executed subsequent to the passage of the act awarding a lien, on the 13th of January, 1920, from which action this appeal is taken.
Three questions arising upon the record are presented for our consideration, which are aptly set forth in the assignments of error, viz.: That the Taka-Kola corporation by its charter was not such a company as was authorized to do a manufacturing business within the purview of section 6438 of the Code; that the business conducted by it was not a manufacturing business, nor were the supplies furnished for which the lien is claimed such as the statute authorized a lien for; and that the act under which the lien is claimed was void because in violation of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, as impairing the obligation of contract. These will be considered in the order named.
First. The charter of the company will be looked to to ascertain its powers. It provides as follows: "To do a general bottling business, selling at wholesale or retail, and dispensing soft drinks, and to own mineral springs or wells, and to dispense, job and sell water of all sorts."
It will be conceded that the corporation is a creature of the statute, and is limited to the authority granted in its charter, which is required to be recorded as well in the office of the state corporation commission as in the clerk's office of the city or county of the home office of the company. This recordation is required to the end that the public may be advised of the authority of the corporation to do business.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in considering the authority of corporations, aptly states the same as follows:
Thomas v. Railroad, 101 U. S. 71, 80, 82, 25 L. Ed. 950; Clark on Corporations, p. 67; 2 Fletcher on Corporations, § 783, and cases cited.
Persons dealing with corporations whose charters are duly recorded, are charged with knowledge of the limitations and restrictions contained therein. Radford Water & Power Co. v. Dunlap, 128 Va. 658, 674, 105 S. E. 257. A careful examination of the charter of this company, as bearing upon its authority to do business, gives but little support to its being a manufacturing company, within the intent and meaning of section 6438, under which the claim is made. Counsel for appellee frankly concedes in argument that the real question in this case turns upon whether the bottling business, as usually conducted, is a manufacturing business. We can but feel that considering its charter in the light stated, and having due regard to just what the actual business so far as bottling carbonated water consisted of, there is but little to give color to the claim that the provision in the charter made the bankrupt company a manufacturer within the spirit and meaning of the law.
Second. Considering the question of whether or not the business conducted was in point of fact a manufacturing business, and the supplies furnished such as the statute authorized a lien for, the statute itself and the fact of just what supplies were furnished, and what was done in connection with the bottling business, becomes material. The statute is briefly as follows:
* * *"
The facts found are as follows:
Respecting the statute itself, it may not be amiss to note that as originally drawn, it applied only to railroads, canals, and other transportation companies, and that by subsequent amendment, mining and manufacturing companies were added. The word "supplies" has now been omitted from the act, so far as mining and manufacturing companies are concerned. The Legislature, in placing railroad, canal, and other transportation companies and mining and manufacturing companies all in one section, plainly had in mind corporations extensive in character, and at least those actually and chiefly so engaged, and not such as might incidentally, from a technical viewpoint, be engaged partially in manufacturing something used, or capable of being used in connection with the business in hand....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
...458. See also Carlsbad Water Co. v. New, 33 Colo. 389; Ballard v. Hammond Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Ltd. 147 La. 580. Compare Citizens' & Marine Bank v. Mason, 2 F.2d 352. The corporation in this group sells fruit juices, makes and sells fruit syrups, and shreds and sells orange and lemon peel......
-
The Kansas Wheat Growers Association v. Rowan
... ... P 1.) ... In ... Citizens' & Marine Bank v. Mason, 2 F.2d ... 352, the court said: ... ...