Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Boatmen's Bank
Decision Date | 27 April 1916 |
Docket Number | 4570. |
Parties | CHICAGO MILL & LUMBER CO. v. BOATMEN'S BANK. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George F. Haid and James C. Jones, both of St. Louis, Mo. (Jones Hocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief) for plaintiff in error.
Sears Lehmann, of St. Louis, Mo. (Lehmann & Lehmann, of St. Louis Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and ELLIOTT, District Judge.
The Boatmen's Bank, plaintiff below, sued the Chicago Mill & Lumber Company, a business corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, on a promissory note of $25,000.
The defendant, for its answer, admitted liability on the note, but pleaded a counterclaim against the plaintiff of this kind: It alleged that the bank was a creditor in a large amount of a corporation known as the Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company, and also an owner of a large part of its capital stock, and as such had the control and management of its business and property, for its own use and benefit; that the Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Company, another corporation, was the agent of the defendant; that, as such agent, it made certain loans and advances to the bank, under the name of Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company, and agreed to make certain purchases of lumber from it, the value and agreed price of which to be applied in reduction of the advances made and to be made; that afterwards the Paepcke Company, acting as such agent, entered into certain contracts with the bank, under the name of the Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company, by the provisions of which the bank agreed to deliver to the Paepcke Company, as agent for the defendant, all the output of its mill located at Tiger Tail, Tenn., during the period from September 8, 1910, to October 1, 1912; that the defendant, acting by and through its said agent, agreed to make certain advances of money as the lumber output of the Tiger Tail Company should be loaded on barges for shipment to the defendant, and did from time to time make such advances, and from time to time loaned to the plaintiff other sums of money in addition to such advances; that the defendant from time to time received from plaintiff, under its name of Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company, various shipments of lumber, the value and contract price of which were credited to the plaintiff; that the difference between the amount so advanced to plaintiff and the value of the lumber received from plaintiff was $32,387.57, which (less the credit of $4,445.18, which it concedes) it avers the plaintiff agreed and promised to pay to the defendant, but has failed to do so.
Plaintiff, for its replication, denied each and every allegation of the counterclaim, and alleged that any such contract or agreement as defendant claims to have been made with it was beyond its power as a banking corporation.
The case was tried to a jury, the defendant taking the burden of proof, and at the close of defendant's evidence the trial court, at the request of plaintiff's counsel, instructed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note sued on, and to find a verdict against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff on defendant's counterclaim. On a verdict returned accordingly, judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the defendant Lumber Company prosecutes this writ of error, not complaining of the judgment against it on plaintiff's cause of action, but complaining of the action of the court in directing a verdict against it on its counterclaim.
The proof showed that the Tiger Tail Company was organized in 1892 with a capital of $25,000, divided into 250 shares of $100 each, practically all of which was taken by Henry C. Bagby and Joanna L. Bagby; that some time after its organization Luther H. Conn became the owner of one-half of its capital stock, or 125 shares, the remaining 125 shares being owned by the original incorporators-- Henry C. Bagby and his wife, Joanna L. Bagby. Mr. Bagby became the president of the company, and as such its chief executive officer, and continued so until 1906, during which time he secured for and on behalf of his company financial assistance from time to time from the Boatmen's Bank. During that time, and prior to July 25, 1906, the Tiger Tail Company became indebted to the bank in the total sum of $115,000, represented by its several promissory notes for various sums given from time to time as the exigencies of business required, upon which Luther H. Conn and Mrs. Bagby were indorsers; and Mrs. Bagby was also then personally indebted to the bank in the sum of $14,000, represented by notes, upon which both Conn and McRee were indorsers.
At about this time the St. Louis Clearing House began to criticize the loans of the bank to the Tiger Tail Company, and the amount of the loan not being reduced gradually, or at all, the indorsers became uneasy about the matter, and the bank itself became dissatisfied with the management of the company under Bagby, as its chief officer. As a result, a new deal was arranged by the parties interested, which was formally expressed in a contract of which the following is a copy:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Birmingham Realty Co. v. Crossett
... ... go together. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry ... Co., 163 U.S. 564, 592, 16 S.Ct. 1173, 41 ... 827, ... 135 C. C. A. 497 (damages); Chicago Mill, etc., Co. v ... Boatmen's Bank, 234 F. 41, 148 C. C. A ... ...
-
IN RE PERRY
...should desire to keep an oversight over its doings." Krivo Indus. Supply Co., 483 F.2d at 1105, quoting Chi. Mill & Lumber Co. v. Boatmen's Bank, 234 F. 41 (8th Cir.1916). Nor does there appear to be any "fraud, illegality, or breach of fiduciary duties." There has been no allegation by the......
-
State ex rel. Stiers Bros. Const. Co. v. Hughes
... ... Mertz v ... Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., 344 Mo. 1150, 130 S.W.2d ... 611; ... Chase v. West, ... 121 Me. 165, 116 A. 213; Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v ... Boatmen's Bank, 234 F. 41. (10) ... ...
-
Global Credit Services, Inc. v. AMISUB (Saint Joseph Hosp.), Inc.
...of a corporation does not automatically constitute control sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. In Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Boatmen's Bank, 234 F. 41 (8th Cir.1916), a bank had its assistant cashier elected president of the company to protect its investment of money to a mill and la......