Coburn v. Cedar Val. Land & Cattle Co.
Citation | 25 F. 791 |
Parties | COBURN and another v. CEDAR VALLEY LAND & CATTLE CO., Limited, and another. |
Decision Date | 01 December 1885 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Geo. W McCrary and Adams & Field, for motion.
Waters & Chase, Karnes & Ess, and Mr. Houston, contra.
The bill in this case was addressed to the state district court for Oldham county. It shows in substance, that the complainants are citizens of Missouri and the respondents aliens, the respondent corporation being organized under the laws of Great Britain, and having its principal office in London, and the other respondent being a resident of London and subject of Great Britain; that the respondent company is the owner of a large ranch (75,000 acres or more) in the north-western part of the state (Pan Handle) and of large herds of cattle thereon, numbering many thousand (numbers given) and of the value-- the cattle and other personal property-- of over $500,000; that in March, 1885, the complainants became the purchasers of the stock of the respondent corporation to the extent in value of $100,000 paying thereon and therefor the sum of $50,000 in cash, on the express condition that the complainant W. N. Ewing should be the manager of the company's ranch and the cattle and other properties thereon for a period of five years; and the, in accordance with said condition of said purchase of the stock aforesaid, the respondent company, on the fourth of March, 1885, entered into a written contract with said W. N. Ewing, said contract being as follows:
-- And that thereupon the complainants Coburn & Ewing took said stock, and paid the said company the sum of $50,000; and that the complainant W. N. Ewing immediately entered upon his duties as said manager, and diligently and faithfully continued and continues to discharge the same with skill and advantage to said company; that on the seventh day of September, 1885, the respondent company, colluding and conspiring with the other respondent (Geo. D. Fisher) to wrong, cheat, and defraud complainants, and especially the complainant W. N. Ewing, issued to the complainant Ewing the following, to-wit:
The bill alleges that all the members of the board of directors of the respondent company, and all of its officers, except complainant Ewing, are residents of Great Britain, and wholly unacquainted with the business of managing such ranch property; that complainant Ewing has thorough knowledge of and skill in conducting said business, and to remove him would work irreparable injury; that said George D. Fisher has demanded of complainant Ewing the turning over to him, said Fisher, of all of said company's property, and is claiming to be the only legally authorized agent in America that said Fisher is wholly unacquainted with the cattle business, etc.; with full statement of damage likely to result to complainants if said Ewing was compelled now to surrender the control as manager of the company's property aforesaid, and praying for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Williams
...33 Iowa 423; King v. Gildersleeve, 21 P. 961; Converse v. Hood, 21 N.E. 876; Dulin v. Wood & Coal Co., 35 P. 1045; Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land & Cattle Co., 25 F. 791. M. Lewis and Judson & Taussig for respondent. (1) Dealing with the defendant company as a corporate entity, the appointment......
-
Shubert v. Woodward
... ... 283; ... Dreutzer v. Frankfort Land Company, 65 F. 642, 644, ... 13 C.C.A. 73 ... Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land & Cattle Co. (C.C.) 25 ... F. 791, ... ...
-
Preston v. McNeil Lumber Co.
... ... the exact condition here. It was also held, in Coburn v ... Cedar Valley Land Co. (C.C.) 25 F. 791, that the ... ...