Alaska & Chicago Commercial Co. v. Solner
Decision Date | 06 June 1903 |
Docket Number | 922. |
Citation | 123 F. 855 |
Parties | ALASKA & CHICAGO COMMERCIAL CO. v. SOLNER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles F. Hanlon and O. D. Cochrane, for appellant.
Bruner Bros. and Elwood Bruner, for appellee.
Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.
This is a suit in equity to set aside and cancel certain conveyances of real estate situate in Nome, Alaska, which were executed by William J. Bauerle, and delivered to appellee, and to recover damages for $15,000. Did the court err in dismissing the bill and rendering judgment for the defendant? What are the facts?
Appellant is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Illinois, and engaged in the merchandise business at Nome, Alaska. It owned two lots, with buildings thereon, in which it had a stock of merchandise and groceries. The value of the real estate is alleged to be $10,000, and of the stock of merchandise $15,000. In the answer it is alleged that the real estate is of the value of only $4,000, and the merchandise of the value of $4,000, and no more. The question as to the value of the property need not be discussed. It is proper, however, to say that there was as much testimony offered upon this point to sustain the averments in the answer as there was to sustain the averments in the complaint.
From the record it appears that on March 17, 1901, a meeting of the board of directors of appellant was held, and the following resolution adopted:
Bauerle arrived at Nome about the 1st of August, 1901, and immediately took charge and management of appellant's business. The affairs of the corporation were not found to be in a prosperous condition. It owed the Bank of Cape Nome about $2,300 (of which bank appellee was the cashier and general manager). Bauerle was dissatisfied with the situation, and decided to close out the business of the corporation. Herman Heinze, who had been the agent of the corporation, and was its vice president, made no objection to the sale, but manifested a desire to purchase the property for himself. He informed Solner that Bauerle had offered him the whole property for $5,000, and applied to Solner for a loan of that amount of money to enable him to buy the property. The loan was declined. Bauerle then called upon Solner, and offered him the property for $5,000. The property was examined and purchased by Solner for $5,000. Bauerle received the money, and then paid the debt due the bank. On August 17th Bauerle executed deeds for the real estate and a bill of sale for the personal property, and in the presence of Heinze put Solner in possession thereof. The title to one of the lots stood in the name of appellant, and the title to the other lot was in the name of William J. Bauerle, but, as a matter of fact, known to Solner, it was simply held in trust for the corporation. The deed to one lot was executed and signed, 'The Alaska and Chicago Commercial Co., (Seal) per William J. Bauerle, (Seal) Sec., Treas. & Mgr.' The other deed was signed by William J. Bauerle. Both deeds were witnessed by H. A. Day and Herman Heinze. On the day the deeds were executed, an agreement was drawn up between William J. Bauerle, the party of the first part, and N. B. Solner, the party of the second part, as follows:
William J. Bauerle. (Seal.)
'Herman Heinze.
'H. A. Day.'
The testimony shows that all of the transactions between William J. Bauerle and appellee were conducted openly, under a knowledge of all the facts. The good faith of the transactions as between them is not questioned upon this appeal, although alleged in the complaint to be fraudulent as against the corporation. From the evidence there is no 'room or reason' to believe that any fraud was committed. The argument of appellant is directed solely to the point of 'want of authority' on behalf of William J. Bauerle to execute the deeds and make the sale of the personal property. A few days after the transfer of the property Solner sold the personal property to one Shirk for the sum of $4,000. Mr. Heinze asked Solner to deed the property to him under the promise that he would pay the $5,000 within a year. He never made any offer on behalf of the corporation, nor did he, on behalf of the corporation, make any demand for the return of the property. On the 27th day of August, 1901, William J. Bauerle, by virtue of the power given him in the power of attorney from appellant, bearing date May 17, 1901, substituted and appointed Herman Heinze 'to do, perform, and execute every act and thing which I could do in, by, and under the same, as hereinbefore enumerated, as well for me as being the true and lawful attorney and substitute of the said Alaska and Chicago Commercial Company, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said attorney and substitute hereby made and appointed shall lawfully do or cause to be done in the premises by virtue hereof and of the said letter or power of attorney,' and a few days thereafter departed from Nome. On September 5, 1901, Heinze commenced this suit on behalf of appellant. The whole case, so far as appellant is concerned, rests upon the testimony of Herman Heinze. The record shows that appellee sought to obtain the testimony of the officers of appellant, especially of William J. Bauerle, the secretary, treasurer, and managing agent thereof, and of Michael Bauerle, the president and one of the principal stockholders thereof; but without avail. Mr. Heinze, upon his examination in chief, was asked if he had ever received any communication from the board of directors of appellant since the commencement of the suit, and replied that he had not. The tender only applied to the real estate, as the stock of merchandise had been disposed of by Solner prior to the commencement of the suit.
Touching the matter of tender, we think the record shows, by a preponderance of evidence at least, that appellant never made any tender of the amount paid by Solner before the commencement of the suit, or at any time thereafter. On his examination on behalf of appellant Mr. Heinze, in reply to questions answered as follows:
'Q. Mr. Heinze, did you at any time prior to the commencement of this action offer to repay to Mr. Solner the amount of money which he had paid to Mr. Bauerle in this transaction? A. Yes, sir. * * * On the 19th of August, 1901. Q. Immediately after the sale? * * * A. The sale was made Saturday, and I offered this on Monday. Q. State what occurred at that time. A. Well, Mr. Solner came in-- in the office of the store building-- and I made out a line on a scrap of paper, and I said, under the circumstances the sale was made, I offered to pay him the $5,000 back. Q. What did he say? A. He turned right short off, and said, 'No, I am going to keep it now."
On his cross-examination, in reply to the question, 'How did you make the offer?' he said:
This testimony falls far short of establishing the fact that the so-called tender was made on behalf of the appellant. It implies an offer on behalf of Heinze. He does not pretend that he got the money-- $5,000-- from the corporation. That it was an offer made on his own behalf is testified to by Mr. Solner:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arp & Hammond Hardware Co. v. Hammond Packing Co.
...813; Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59; Am. B. Co. v. Lbr. Co., 163 S.W. 167; City v. Eaves, 44 So. 588; 2 Morawetz on Corps. 618; Alaska v. Solner, 123 F. 855; R. R. Co. v. Co., 55 S.W. 944; G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 95 F. 23; 1st Nat'l Bank v. Min. Co., 89 F. 439; Nat'l Life Ins.......
-
Blackwell v. Kercheval
... ... S. & W. R. R. Co., 120 U.S. 256, 7 S.Ct. 542, 30 ... L.Ed. 639; Alaska & Chicago Commercial Co. v. Solner, 123 F ... 855, 59 C. C. A. 662.) ... ...
-
McCartney v. Clover Valley Land & Stock Co.
... ... 371, 9 Sup.Ct. 770, 33 L.Ed. 157; G ... V. B. Mining Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co., ... 51 Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago, ... G. V. B. Mining Co. (C.C.) ... [232 F. 702] ... 89 F. 439; Alaska & Chicago, etc., Co. v. Solner, ... 123 F. 855, 59 C.C.A. 662; Galbraith ... ...
- Hanley v. United States