Clubb v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 04 June 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 545,95 Mo. 467
• Parties: CLUBB, Receiver, v. DAVIDSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 545

95 Mo. 467

CLUBB, Receiver, v. DAVIDSON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 4, 1888.

1. CORPORATIONS — OFFICERS — USING POSITION FOR INDIVIDUAL PROFIT.

The president of a packet company having failed to make a contract for his company with the government for carrying the mails, and subsequently succeeding in making such a contract in his own behalf, employing the boats of his company to the extent of its capacity so long as the said company operated boats on that route, but employing other boats when necessary, will be required to use all the facilities afforded by the company, and to account to the company for all money received for the service performed by it, but not for that received for services rendered by the other boats.

2. APPEAL — REVIEW — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Where, in an action against the president of a packet company, to recover money received by him for the company, the trial court gave credence to his testimony that all money received by him for the company had been paid into the treasury, and dismissed the action, the appellate court will not disturb the judgment, no reason for discrediting such testimony appearing.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; BARCLAY, Judge.

Patterson & Crane, for appellant. Given Campbell, for respondent.

NORTON, C. J.

The Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company was, in 1880, and for many years prior thereto, a corporation formed for the purpose of building, purchasing, employing, and using steam-boats and barges for the transportation of freight and passengers upon the Mississippi river. In October, 1880, S. C. Clubb was appointed its receiver, and brought this suit to recover from defendant the money received by him from the United States for carrying the mails on the upper Mississippi river, under two contracts made by defendant, William F. Davidson, while he was president, with the postmaster general. One of these contracts provided for the payment of $22,464 per annum for carrying the mail in steam-boats six times a week during the season of open navigation, between St. Louis and Keokuk, and return, the service to begin July 1, 1879. The other provided for the payment of $71,190 per annum for carrying the mails in the same manner six times a week from St. Louis to St. Paul and return, the service to begin on July 1, 1880. William F. Davidson was the contractor in both these contracts. The plaintiff claims in his petition that said contracts were in equity the contracts of the company, and that said Davidson should be required to account for all moneys paid under them. The answer of defendant, after denying the right of the receiver to maintain this suit, and denying that the corporation had any interest in said mail contracts, or either of them, then sets up and avers that all the moneys received by him under said contracts, over and above the expense incurred in receiving and collecting said moneys from the government in 1879 and 1880, were paid to plaintiff, and that said plaintiff received the full benefit of all sums paid defendant, and during the time plaintiff carried said mails. On the trial plaintiff's bill was dismissed, and judgment rendered for defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed. Waiving the question raised by the answer in reference to the right of Clubb, the receiver, to maintain this suit, two questions are left in the case, the first of which is: Can the defendant, as contractor for carrying said mails, be required to account to plaintiff for what he received under said contract, and, if so, to what extent? The second is: Does the evidence show that defendant has paid to plaintiff all the money received by him under said contracts above the expenses in collecting said moneys from the government in 1879 and 1880? An answer to these questions depends upon the circumstances under which these contracts were made, and the ability of plaintiff to perform the service...