Allan v. Moline Plow Co.
Decision Date | 13 September 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 7204.,7204. |
Citation | 14 F.2d 912 |
Parties | ALLAN v. MOLINE PLOW CO., Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William R. Gilbert, of St. Louis, Mo. (Jesse A. Wolfort and Roscoe Anderson, both of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Sears Lehmann, of St. Louis, Mo. (S. O. Levinson, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and FARIS and PHILLIPS, District Judges.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the bill in a suit brought by George H. Allan against Moline Plow Company, Incorporated, a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia, hereinafter called the Virginia Company.
On September 1, 1918, the Moline Plow Company of Illinois, a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, hereinafter called the Illinois Company, issued its 7 per cent. serial coupon notes payable to bearer, for the aggregate amount of $6,000,000. Each note was for the principal sum of $1,000. They were issued in six series, designated as series A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The notes of series A matured on September 1, 1919, B September 1, 1920, C September 1, 1921, D September 1, 1922, E September 1, 1923, and F September 1, 1924. Plaintiff was the owner of four series D notes. These notes contained, among other things, the following provision:
"This note is one of an issue of notes of the company, all of like date, tenor and amount, except as to the maturity thereof, which notes shall not exceed the aggregate principal amount of $6,000,000, and are all issued under and pursuant to a certain agreement, dated September 1, 1918, executed by the company and the Central Union Trust Company of New York, as trustee, to which agreement reference is hereby made for a description of the terms under which the said notes are issued and of the rights and obligations of the company and the trustee with respect thereto."
On September 1, 1918, the agreement referred to in the notes was duly made and entered into between the Illinois Company and the Central Union Trust Company of New York. In this agreement, the Illinois Company is called the company and the Central Union Trust Company is called the trustee. This agreement, among other things, contained the following provisions:
"Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of the purchase and acceptance of the notes by those who shall hold the same from time to time, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree, for the equal benefit, security and protection of the legal holder or holders of any and all of the notes and coupons, without preference, priority or distinction of any of the notes or coupons over any of the other thereof, by reason of priority in the time of issue, negotiation or maturity thereof, or otherwise howsoever, as follows:
* * * * * * *
In the industrial depression that followed the World War, the Illinois Company found itself in financial difficulties. A reorganization committee was formed and the following plan of reorganization was agreed upon and carried out:
The Virginia Company was organized. The property and assets of the Illinois Company were transferred to the Virginia Company. The Virginia Company issued, and delivered to the reorganization committee, debenture bonds due in 1941, of the aggregate face value of $12,500,000, 7 per cent. cumulative first preferred stock, of the aggregate par value of $12,500,000, 7 per cent. noncumulative second preferred stock, of the aggregate par value of $7,500,000, and 199,500 shares of common stock, of no par value. The securities were dated September 1, 1921. Each of the creditors who joined in and accepted the reorganization plan, including the holders of the serial notes issued September 1, 1918, received for each $1,000 of indebtedness held by them 7 per cent. debentures of the par value of $500, new first preferred stock of the par value of $500, and 2½ shares of the new common stock. For each share of first preferred stock outstanding of the Illinois Company, one share of new second preferred stock was issued. For each share of second preferred stock outstanding of the Illinois Company three-fifths of a share of new common stock was issued. For each share of common stock outstanding of the Illinois Company, one-eighth share of new common stock was issued.
The reorganization agreement provided that no dividends should be paid on the second preferred and common stock until the bonds and the first preferred stock with interest thereon and dividends had been paid and retired. It provided further that "the claims of all creditors (except those to be paid in accordance with paragraph 7 of this offer) whether they have or have not heretofore signed and accepted the plan and agreement of reorganization, shall be treated on a plane of exact equality." Paragraph 7 referred to above made provision for the payment of current liabilities of the Illinois Company, not to exceed $700,000. The Virginia Company assumed current obligations of the Illinois Company aggregating approximately $700,000. 96½ per cent. of the note holders and 99½ per cent. of the other creditors accepted the plan and exchanged their notes and claims for the new securities.
Thereafter, and on September 26, 1925, without complying with the provisions of the trust agreement, the plaintiff brought this suit against the Virginia Company, setting up that he was the owner of four notes; that the same were due and unpaid; that pursuant to the plan of reorganization, the assets of the Illinois Company had been transferred to the Virginia Company in exchange for securities issued to the reorganization committee; that such transfer was in fraud of the creditors of the Illinois Company, including the plaintiff, and prayed that the Virginia Company "be adjudged and decreed to hold said assets so received from the Moline Plow Company of Illinois for the benefit of the plaintiff and all other creditors of the Moline Plow Company of Illinois...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moshannon Nat. Bank v. Iron Mountain Ranch Co.
...Ry. Co., (Minn.) 53 N.W. 1134; R. R. Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U.S. 47, 76; Crossthwaite v. Moline Plow Co., 298 F. 466; Allan v. Moline Plow Co., 14 F.2d 912; Muren Mining Co. (Mo.) 160 S.W. 835; Bank v. Mfg. Co., (N. C.) 97 S.E. 1; Mortg. Co. v. Ramsey, 49 F.2d 738. The letters with reference t......
-
Betts v. Massachusetts Cities Realty Co.
...Gowdy, 283 Mass. 204, 207, 208, 209, 186 N.E. 244, 87 A.L.R. 1039;McClure v. Oxford, 94 U.S. 429, 433, 24 L.Ed. 129;Allan v. Moline Plow Co., Inc., 8 Cir., 14 F.2d 912, 915;McAdoo v. Oregon City Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 71 F.2d 879, 882, 883;Oster v. Buildings Development Co., 213 Wis. 481, 252 N.......
-
Still v. Hopkins (In re Hopkins)
...of the fund goes to the fraudulent grantee. In the instant case, the Illinois Company retained no interest in the property conveyed.14 F.2d 912, 915 (8th Cir.1926) (citations omitted). In McCutchen v. Pigue, cited by the Trustee, the transferor conveyed 250 acres of land to the transferee d......
-
Still v. Hopkins (In re Hopkins)
...the fund goes to the fraudulent grantee. In the instant case, the Illinois Company retained no interest in the property conveyed.14 F.2d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 1926) (citations omitted). In McCutchen v. Pigue, cited by the Trustee, the transferor conveyed 250 acres of land to the transferee def......