Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes
Decision Date | 24 March 1892 |
Citation | 30 N.E. 667,141 Ill. 320 |
Parties | CHICAGO HANSOM CAB CO. et al. v. YERKES. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Cook county; LORIN C. COLLINS, Judge.
Bill by Charles T. Yerkes against the Chicago Hansom Cab Company, Warren Springer, Rose Abernethy, and others, to set aside a conveyance, and for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Complainant filed a supplemental bill to wind up the affairs of the cab company. Complainant obtained a decree, and Springer and Abernethy appeal. Affirmed.Miller, Starr & Leman, for appellants.
Goudy, Green & Goudy, for appellee.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by SCHOLFIELD, J.:
Charles T. Yerkes, a stockholder of the Chicago Hansom Cab Company, filed his bill in chancery in the Cook circuit court against that company, Warren Springer, Rose Abernethy, and others, to have a sale and conveyance of real estate and personal property of the company to said Rose Abernethy declared void and set aside, and for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. A temporary injunction was issued, and a receiver appointed, as prayed. Answers were filed to the bill, putting in issue its material allegations. By consent of parties before the hearing the receiver was directed by the court to inventory the personal property, an appraiser was appointed to assess the value of the personal property, and it was further dercreed that the property should thereafter be turned over to Rose Abernethy, upon her giving bond, all of which was done. Upon final hearing, Yerkes filed, by consent of court, a supplemental bill to wind up the corporation and sell the real estate, apply the proceeds to the payment of the corporate debts, and distribute any surplus there might be after such payment among the stockholders. The court decreed as prayed in the original and supplemental bills, and Springer and Abernethy appeal from that decree. The facts deemed material to the questions discussed in the opinion are, in brief, these:
The Chicago Hansom Cab Company was organized in 1884, under the general law, as a corporation, for the purpose of carrying on the business of transportation of persons and property by hansom cabs, and other vehicles drawn by animals, in Cook county, and carried on this business from the time of its organization until in 1889. Its capital stock was $100,000, divided into 1,000 shares of $100 each. It acquired the real estate in controversy for a cab barn, soon after its organization, and immediately thereafter erected a cab barn thereon; and it acquired the cabs, horses, harness, and other personal property now in controversy, for the transaction of its business, as that business, from time to time, required. The business of the company proved unprofitable. The company became largely indebted, some portion of which was reduced to judgment, and other portions of it were secured by mortgage upon the company's property. All of the stockholders were in favor of closing up the affairs of the corporation. A meeting of the stockholders was called at the instance of Yerkes for the 13th of April, 1889, to consider the feasibility of selling off the property and closing out the business of the company. At that meeting, Yerkes was instructed by resolution to consult with an attorney as to the proper and legal way to close the business of the company, and to report to an adjourned meeting at 2:30 P. M., on the then following Monday, (April 15, 1889;) and it is proved that at that time Yerkes requested Needham to inform all of the stockholders that he would sell his stock, or purchase the stock of the other stockholders, for 35 cents on the dollar. On the evening of the 13th of April, 1889, C. A. Needham commenced negotiations with Warren Springer, as Needham testified, first informing him that he had a speculation which he thought would pay, which resulted in their entering into the following agreement in writing before the meeting of the stockholders at the adjourned meeting on the 15th of April, namely: This was signed and sealed by Springer and Needham.
Before the making of this contract the stock of the company was owned as follows: Charles T. Yerkes, 375 shares; A. B. Pullman, 265 shares; William M. Van Nortwick, 100 shares; Edward Leger, 30 shares; George L. Dunlap, 100 shares; N. L. Jones, 50 shares; J. W. Cotton, 60 shares; Walter Flagg, 5 shares; Anderson, 5 shares; J. N. Cutler, 10 shares. At the time the stockholders' meeting was held, on the 15th of April, Needham had bought up all the certificates of shares of stock, except those standing in the names of Yerkes and Pullman, having paid Springer's money therefor; and Pullman had at that time given Springer an option for the purchase of his stock at 35 cents on its par value, for which Springer paid him, through Needham, $1,000, and he was finally paid in full therefor, by Needham for Springer, on the 8th day of May following. By Springer's direction, 290 of the shares of stock so purchased by him were transferred to Kirk Himrod, and 30 of them were transferred to Thomas A. Hagerty, under previous agreements between Springer and those parties that they should hold such shares for him. On the 6th of May, 1889, the original certificates of stock were taken up and canceled, and new ones were issued in lien thereof directly to Himrod and Hagerty. The directors of the company elected in January, 1889, for the ensuing year, were Albert B. Pullman, William M. Van Nortwick, J. W. Cotton, Charles A. Needham, and Charles T. Yerkes; and Albert B. Pullman was elected its president and treasurer, and Charles A. Needham its secretary, for that year. At the adjourned meeting of the stockholders held on the 15th of April the record of the meeting shows there were present Yerkes, Pullman,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Red Bud Realty Company v. South
...§ 741; 19 S.W. 82; 97 Id. 202; 59 Ore. 483; 188 Mass. 515; 104 Vt. 121; 156 F. 389; 91 P. 1091; 192 Iowa 733; 39 Minn. 1; 82 Ala. 437; 141 Ill. 320. There was no error in refusing to permit Allyn Smith to withdraw the answer and cross-complaint of Missouri State Life Insurance Company. An a......
-
Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co.
...cannot overreach minority stockholders in authorizing a sale to themselves, or one who represents them (Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320-335, 30 N.E. 667,33 Am.St.Rep. 315), and we believe would apply with equal force to one entrusted with the entire voting power of beneficiar......
-
Johnson v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
...v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547. The minority are entitled to a public sale. Cook on Corp. (5 Ed.), sec. 662, p. 1531 and sec. 671; Chicago Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320; Mason v. Pewabic Co., 133 U.S. 50; Keen Johnson, 9 N.J.Eq. 401; Ervin v. Oregon Nav. Co., 27 F. 625; Railroad v. Railroad, 13 R.......
-
Red Bud Realty Co. v. South
...v. Fisher, 104 Va. 121, 51 S. E. 198; Williams v. Erie Mt. Consol. Mining Co., 47 Wash. 360, 91 Pac. 1091; Chicago Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320, 30 N. E. 667, 33 Am. St. Rep. 315; Rothwell v. Robinson, 39 Minn. 1, 38 N. W. 772, 12 Am. St. Rep. 608; Nathan v. Tompkins, 82 Ala. 437, 2 Sout......