Bingaman v. Commonwealth Trust Co.
Decision Date | 21 September 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 457.,457. |
Citation | 15 F.2d 119 |
Parties | BINGAMAN et al. v. COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Daniel H. Kunkel, John F. Sweeney, Paul G. Smith, John R. Geyer, all of Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Spencer G. Nauman, M. W. Jacobs, C. H. Bergner, all of Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.
On December 9, 1924, the plaintiffs filed their bill of complaint against the defendants to avoid certain bonds alleged to have been issued without consideration by the bankrupt corporation, in violation of section 7 of article 16 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and of section 4 of the Act of Assembly of Pennsylvania of April 17, 1876 (P. L. 32; Pa. St. 1920, § 5649); and also to secure the return of interest paid upon said bonds.
The bill avers, in substance, that the Harrisburg Foundry & Machine Works, on July 1, 1918, executed a mortgage or deed of trust to the Commonwealth Trust Company of Harrisburg, Pa., trustee, to secure an issue of $600,000 par value of first, and refunding 6 per cent. gold bonds, and that on December 31, 1918, $100,000 par value of these bonds were issued to William Jennings, trustee of a certain syndicate, therein named, who distributed them among the members of the syndicate in proportion to their respective interests. This syndicate was formed prior to November 23, 1915, for the purpose of manufacturing war materials at the plant of the company, the Harrisburg Foundry & Machine Works. On November 23, 1915, an agreement was entered into between the company and the syndicate in which the syndicate agreed and undertook to place the necessary machinery and equipment for the manufacture of war materials in the plant of the company, which were to remain the property of the syndicate, and in which agreement all moneys received on account of a certain contract between the company and the J. G. Brill Company, for the manufacture of 30,000 shells, at $6.25 per shell, which was executed on the same day, and was part of the same transaction, were to be paid to William Jennings, trustee of the syndicate, who was to distribute the money derived therefrom as follows: To the company, $1.45 for each shell, and to the members of the syndicate in proportion to their respective contributions thereto, $4.80 per shell. The syndicate was also to continue interested in all subsequent orders of like character for a period of five years.
The work under this contract undertaken by the syndicate was unsuccessful, and resulted in a loss both to the syndicate and the company, and the work was abandoned, and the machinery and equipment were sold by the trustee of the syndicate, and the proceeds distributed among the members of the syndicate.
Although no obligation was imposed upon the company to assume any liability and loss resulting to the syndicate, nevertheless the company issued $100,000 of its bonds to the trustee of the syndicate, without consideration, in an attempt to permit the syndicate members to recoup losses sustained by them in the enterprise for which no liability rested upon the company.
When the bonds were issued and delivered by the company to the syndicate, through its trustee, the members of the syndicate, by stock ownership control of the members of the board of directors of the company, dominated and controlled the management and affairs of the company so as to induce such corporate action as the syndicate required to carry into effect its plan of securing the $100,000 of bonds for the use of the members of the syndicate.
The defendants in the bill are the Commonwealth Trust Company, trustee under the mortgage, William Jennings, trustee of the syndicate, and all of the present holders of the bonds.
The defendants, with the exception of Alfred Sohland and Dora Sohland, have filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, and have assigned eight reasons in support thereof, which will be considered in their order:
"(1) For the reason that Howard M. Bingaman, trustee in bankruptcy of the Harrisburg Foundry & Machine Works, and the Peddicord Sons Transfer Company, a Maryland corporation, are joined as parties plaintiff, there being no authority for law for such joinder."
The trustee alone has the right to maintain an action of this kind. The creditors appoint or elect the trustee, and he represents all of the creditors, and it is improper to join with him in an action of this kind one of the creditors.
In Glenny v. Langdon, 98 U. S. 20, at page 24 (25 L. Ed. 43), Mr. Justice Clifford, delivering the opinion of the court, said:
And in Re Schrom (D. C.) 97 F. 760, District Judge Shiras said:
Where the receiver of an internal improvement fund, who was appointed by the court, filed a bill in equity to determine upon what amount of certain bonds the purchaser was bound to make semiannual payment, it was held that the holders of the bonds were not proper parties complainant. Doggett v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 72, 25 L. Ed. 301. In this case it was said by Mr. Justice Swayne, delivering the opinion of the court:
The same principle is laid down in Southern Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 191, where, on page 199 (25 L. Ed. 319), Mr. Justice Swayne, delivering the opinion of the court, said:
In Trimble v. Woodhead, 102 U. S. 647, 26 L. Ed. 290, it was said by Mr. Justice Miller:
"(2) For the reason that it appears by the bill of complaint that the Peddicord Sons Transfer Company is an unsecured creditor of the Harrisburg Foundry & Machine Works, and hence has no standing to maintain this suit."
According to the bill, the Peddicord Sons Transfer Company is a simple contract creditor, and a simple contract creditor cannot maintain a bill to set aside a transfer of property by his debtor.
In Viquesney et al. v. Allen, 131 F. 21, 65 C. C. A. 259, it was held that a simple contract creditor cannot maintain a bill in equity to set aside fraudulent conveyances of his debtor's property, and to have the same administered by a receiver. District Judge McDowell, who delivered the opinion in this case, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas E. Hogan, Inc. v. Berman
...U.S. 301, 303, 26 L.Ed. 394;Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U.S. 300, 308, 32 S.Ct. 96, 56 L.Ed. 208;Bingaman v. Commonwealth Trust Co., D.C., 15 F.2d 119;Gochenour v. George & Francis Ball Foundation, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 508, affirmed, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 259. Where suits by credit......
-
Raphael v. Alcott
...75 F.2d 756; McCaffrey v. Elliott, 5 Cir., 47 F.2d 72; Hoyt v. Haampe, 206 Iowa 206, 214 N.W. 718, 220 N.W. 45; Bingaman v. Commonwealth Trust Company, D.C., 15 F.2d 119; First Trust Company v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 8 Cir., 256 F. 830; Mackall v. Pocock, 136 Minn. 8, 161 N.W. 2......
-
McBride v. Farrington
...22 A.2d 138; also Fredericks v. Jacoby, 128 N.J.Eq. 426, 16 A.2d 809. 19 Wilkinson v. Livingston, supra; Cf. Bingaman v. Commonwealth Trust Co., D.C., 15 F.2d 119. ...
-
Thomas E. Hogan, Inc. v. Berman
... ... Grossman, 2 F.2d 458. Pratt Paper Co. v. Eiffler, 196 Iowa, ... 199. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Detroit Creamery ... Co. 265 Mich. 636. Mott v. Reeves, 125 Misc. (N. Y.) ... 511, 246 ... U.S. 301, 303. Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber ... Co. 222 U.S. 300, 308. Bingaman v. Commonwealth Trust ... Co. 15 F.2d 119. Gochenour v. George & Francis Ball ... Foundation, 35 ... ...