Carlisle v. Smith
Decision Date | 17 July 1916 |
Docket Number | 28. |
Parties | CARLISLE v. SMITH et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Anderson & Rountree, of Atlanta, Ga., and W. C. Wright, of Newnan Ga., for plaintiff.
H. H Dean, of Gainesville, Ga., and Robt. C. & Philip H. Alston of Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.
The business of the court is such and my time is so occupied with official business that I cannot go as extensively into the facts and law of this case as perhaps the character of the case and the rather extensive argument of counsel and the voluminous briefs furnished me would justify. I simply state my conclusions briefly but, I trust, so that they may be understood. These conclusions are:
First The conclusion of the special master that there was no agreement between Carlisle and Smith and Ashley by which they entered into a partnership or 'joint adventure,' to divide among them any profits that might arise from the reorganization or rehabilitation of the North Georgia Electric Company, must be upheld.
The evidence in the case is sharply conflicting, and the special master, after hearing it all and weighing it, decided favorably to Smith and Ashley. Under any rule with reference to the weight to be given a master's report I think the court would be required to sustain the master in this respect. No attempt is made anywhere to impeach any of the witnesses testifying on this subject. Ashley and Smith are apparently business men of good standing where they live, and Carlisle is a man of excellent repute in this state. It is to be hoped that expressions here and there in the many conversations between the parties were misinterpreted and that all of them are trying to tell the truth about the thing as they understood it. It is hard to believe that men like these would willfully and deliberately swear to a falsehood to make money, and I do not think it is necessary to find that they did that, nor can I see that any of them willfully testified to anything they did not believe to be true at the time.
Of course the presumption in any case of reference such as this is in favor of the master's report, especially where he finds on conflicting testimony. All of the exceptions to the findings of the master with reference to this, therefore, are overruled.
Second: I am satisfied that, under the law, with Carlisle's relation to the North Georgia Electric Company, being most of the time during which these transactions occurred the president and for a short time vice president, and all the time being officially related in some way to the company, a contract between him and other people, to do work for and accept compensation from other parties dealing with his company, the dealings on behalf of the third parties seeming to be antagonistic to the rights of the electric company, would be illegal and nonenforceable. It is claimed here, as I understand it, that what Carlisle did, while he was purchasing the stock of the North Georgia Electric Company for other people and for interests represented by Smith and Ashley, was really benefiting the stockholders of that company because the company was in such a situation at the time the dealings were entered into that their stock was valueless, and that he really gave them more for their stock than they could have expected to realize otherwise. Even if this should be true and conceding it, it is not what really occurred in a transaction like this, where an officer of a corporation undertakes to assist parties who are dealing with the corporation, but it is the principle which controls; it is what the sanctioning of such transactions could lead to and necessarily in many, if not in most, cases would lead to. That is to say, where a person is an officer of a corporation and undertakes to assist others who are attempting to acquire control of the corporation, whether the results are beneficial to the stockholders or not, the consideration is what the result of sanctioning such transactions would be.
In the opinion in McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U.S. 639, 19 Sup.Ct. 839, 43 L.Ed. 1117, the part I am referring to being on page 647 of 174 U.S., on page 842 of 19 Sup.Ct., 43 L.Ed. 1117, Mr. Justice Peckham says:
In Richardson v. Crandall, 48 N.Y. 348, 362, the court said, as quoted by Mr. Justice Peckham in McMullen v. Hoffman:
-- citing Atcheson v. Mallon, 43 N.Y. 147.
The case of McMullen v. Hoffman was a case in which McMullen undertook to recover from Hoffman a share in the profit which Hoffman had made and received on a contract with the city of Portland, Or., for the manufacturing and laying of certain pipe in the construction of waterworks for the city of Portland. McMullen and Hoffman entered into an agreement that they should both bid for the work for which the city was receiving bids, and that they should jointly do the work and share the profits or loss. McMullen's company bid $50,000 more for the work than Hoffman's company. The way the bids were put in is described by the court in the opinion in this way (174 U.S. 645, 19 Sup.Ct. 841, 43 L.Ed. 1117):
It is then stated, in substance, that the effect of the bid of McMullen's company would be to cause the water committee of the city, who were considering the bids, to think that that company, bidding in good faith, considered the work worth nearly $50,000 more than Hoffman's company had bid, and in this way would deceive the committee acting for the city.
Further along in the opinion the court says, in reference to the right to recover in a case like this (174 U.S. 654, 19 Sup.Ct. 845, 43 L.Ed. 1117):
The court then cites, considers, and discusses a number of cases bearing upon the question of the right of McMullen to recover his share of the profits made by Hoffman's company under the contract referred to, among the cases being several which have been cited here for the plaintiff. Perhaps the principal one of these cases relied upon by the plaintiff is that of Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. (U.S.) 70, 17 L.Ed. 732. The first headnote will show what was decided in that case. It is this:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seyberth v. American Commander Mining & Milling Co.
...S.W. 717; Funkhouser v. Capps (Tex. Civ. App.), 174 S.W. 897; Thomas v. Matthews, 94 Ohio 32, 113 N.E. 669, L. R. A. 1917A, 1068; Carlisle v. Smith, 234 F. 759; Gilchrist Hatch (Ind. App.), 100 N.E. 473.) "It is not all persons who have an interest in the subject matter of the suit, but in ......
-
Horbach v. Coyle
...et al. v. Sherman (C. C.) 20 F. 167; Maine Northwestern Development Co. v. Northern Commercial Co. (D. C.) 213 F. 103; Carlisle v. Smith et al. (D. C.) 234 F. 759. In the last case above cited the president of a corporation agreed for compensation to assist others to gain control of the com......
-
Westwood v. Continental Can Co.
...control of their corporations by stock purchases have been several times held contrary to official duty and unenforceable. Carlisle v. Smith (D.C.) 234 F. 759; Horbach v. Coyle (C.C.A.) 2 F.(2d) 702; Kratzer v. Day (C.C.A.) 12 F.(2d) 724. We are satisfied that when directors or other office......
-
Childs v. RIC Group, Inc.
...successfully maintain a suit to recover the consideration for his efforts. Horbach v. Coyle, 2 F.2d 702 (8th Cir. 1924); Carlisle v. Smith, 234 F. 759 (N.D.Ga. 1916); cf. Westwood v. Continental Can Co., Inc., 80 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1935); see also Restatement of Contracts § 569 (1932). A ba......