Campbell v. Zion's Co-op. Home Building & Real Estate Co.
Citation | 46 Utah 1,148 P. 401 |
Decision Date | 12 December 1914 |
Docket Number | 2626-2634 |
Parties | CAMPBELL v. ZION'S CO-OP. HOME BUILDING & REAL ESTATE CO. (and eight other cases) |
Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Appeal from District Court; Second District; Hon. J. A. Howell Judge.
Separate actions by A. M. Campbell, by Fred King, by P. B. Haslet, by George King, by Fred W. Voll, by Fred Breining, by B. F Estes, by W. B. Haymond, and by B. F. Rugg against the Zion's Co-operative Home Building & Real Estate Company.
Judgment for plaintiff in each case. Defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED, with directions.
A. A Duncan for appellant.
A. G. Horn and Thos. Marioneaux for respondents.
These are actions to recover moneys from the defendant paid by the plaintiffs in the purchase of its capital stock. They are based on a rescission of contract for alleged deceit, misrepresentations, and fraud. There are nine cases--different plaintiffs, same defendant. The transactions and controversies arising out of them are similar. The cases were tried separately to the court. In each the plaintiff had judgment for the full demand of the complaint. The defendant appeals in each with separate transcripts and abstracts of the records. The cases were here argued and submitted together on briefs filed in the Campbell case and stipulated to apply to all of the cases.
The chief contention of the defendant is that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and that neither the statements or representations as found, nor as shown by the evidence, are of such material and existing or past facts or events as to be actionable; that they relate to mere expressions of opinion and beliefs, and to future events and promises. The facts were found as alleged in the complaints.
The defendant was organized on the 26th of August, 1908, to do a general real estate business, buy and sell real estate, commercial stocks, and all kinds of merchandise used in the construction of buildings, and to carry on a general contracting and building business. Its capital stock was 250,000 shares of the par value of one dollar each, of which 80,420 shares were subscribed for and issued, and were fully paid at par. The balance of the stock was held as treasury stock, to be disposed of by the board of directors. The defendant owned considerable improved real estate, and had and operated two lumber yards at Salt Lake, and later, in 1911, established one at Ogden. In August, 1909, the Bear Creek Land Company was organized with a capital stock of 200,000 shares of the par value of one dollar each and acquired timber lands and mills in Oregon. The defendant, shortly thereafter, purchased 40,000 of 84,500 issued shares of that company and paid therefor $ 40,000. On December 31, 1908, the defendant declared and paid its first dividend of $ 8,979.75; on February 23, 1909, a stock dividend of $ 50,000; and on December 30th a cash dividend of $ 32,265, which was paid January 1, 1910; and between February and December paid additional cash dividends. The total dividends declared and paid for the year 1909 were about $ 110,000. In 1910 it paid a cash dividend of about $ 35,000, in 1911, $ 14,185, and in 1912, about $ 6,000, mostly on preferred stock. In May, 1912, the defendant's net assets, as shown by its books and as testified to by its president, were $ 219,213.40. This, however, is claimed to have been exaggerated by adding pretended increased cost prices of material and market values of real estate. Its total issued stock then was 265,633 shares; its capital stock having been increased in the meantime to 500,000 shares, of which 150,000 were preferred shares. Every stockholder was given the privilege of converting common stock for preferred stock. All the stock purchased by the plaintiffs was common stock. Some of them, after their purchase, exchanged some common for preferred stock. The lumber yard at Ogden and the milling and lumber business in Oregon were operated at a loss.
It is alleged in the complaints, and admitted by the defendant, that on the 23d day of October, 1908, about two months after the defendant was organized, it authorized and empowered its president and secretary "to find purchasers for and negotiate the sale of and sell its treasury stock at the price and sum of one dollar per share." About that time the defendant put out a printed circular in which it stated:
Copies were received by all of the plaintiffs before they purchased any stock. All of them testified that they, for a long time, had been well acquainted with the secretary and had the utmost confidence in him. They were all railroad employees. Formerly the secretary was also for a number of years in the employ of the same railroad company. All of the plaintiffs were solicited by the secretary, some of them by both the president and the secretary, to purchase the defendant's treasury stock.
In the Campbell case the evidence with respect to additional statements and representations made to Campbell by the secretary and president, and as testified to by Campbell, is: The secretary talked with him about purchasing stock several months before he purchased his first stock, which was 400 shares, February 6, 1909. The secretary said to him:
"I consider you one of my best friends, and I would like you to get all you can as quick as possible."
He told him who the directors and officers of the defendant were, their business experiences and connections, and stated:
He further testified that the secretary assured him that he was taking no chances whatever, and that he was buying into the best thing that ever was sold; that the stock was good, dollar for dollar, at any bank in Salt Lake, and he or the defendant would give him dollar for dollar for his stock. After the witness had purchased the first stock, he had a further talk with the secretary in which he told him that the defendant owned its own timber lands, its own sawmills, and was shipping its own lumber, and had a market not dependent upon the Salt Lake market. He also thereafter had a talk with the president. He told him that:
He told him that the company was financially in first-class circumstances, did not owe a dollar, and that it paid cash for everything it bought, and that it guaranteed eight per cent., and maybe more, and that "if you get 5,000 shares we guarantee that in five years you will be an independent man; that you won't have to work for a railroad company or any other company"; that the company was financially reliable and guaranteed dividends on all outstanding stock and that there was no chance to lose a cent, and that the dividends would come regularly at eight per cent.; that the property was paying a good income; that the company had enough money coming from its property to guarantee the dividends it was paying; that the company had made the money that paid the dividends; and that they could be looked for regularly. He asked the witness if he had received the $ 100 dividend, the ten per cent. cash dividend (paid January 1, 1910), and stated that he could guarantee those dividends; that the company had made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Justheim Petroleum Company v. Hammond
...Utah 507, 184 P.2d 229; Nielson v. Leamington Mines & Exploration Corporation, 87 Utah 69, 48 P.2d 439; Campbell v. Zion's Co-Op. Home Building & Real Estate Co., 46 Utah 1, 148 P. 401; Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U.S. 247, 8 S.Ct. 881, 31 L.Ed. The defendants argue that this ins......
-
Mayer v. Rankin
... ... , 82 Utah 224, 23 P.2d 921; ... Campbell v. Home Bldg., etc., Co. , 46 Utah ... 1, 148 ... National Building & ... Loan Ass'n of America , 80 Utah 62, 12 ... ...
-
Greenwell v. Duvall
...Kinnear v. Prows, 1932, 81 Utah 135, 16 P.2d 1094; Hull v. Flinders, 1933, 83 Utah 158, 27 P.2d 56; Campbell v. Zion's Co-Op. Home Bldg. & Real Est. Co., 1914, 46 Utah 1, 148 P. 401; Chapman v. Troy Laundry Co., 1936, 87 Utah 15, 47 P.2d 1054; Taylor v. Moore, 1936, 87 Utah 493, 51 P.2d 222......
-
Pace v. Parrish
...to prove the fraud charged by clear and convincing evidence. Taylor v. Moore, 87 Utah 493, 51 P.2d 222; Campbell v. Zion's Co-op. Home Building & Real Estate Co., 46 Utah 1, 148 P. 401; Ferrell v. Wiswell, 45 Utah 202, 143 P. 582. The plaintiffs having prevailed, we review the evidence in t......