Corcoran v. Royal Development Co.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 300.,300. |
| Citation | 121 F.2d 957 |
| Parties | CORCORAN v. ROYAL DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David M. Palley, of New York City, for appellant.
Eugene J. Dwyer and Dwyer, Reilly, Roberts, McLouth & Dicker, all of Rochester, N. Y., for appellee.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction appearing upon its face. The jurisdiction of the district court depended upon diversity of citizenship and upon the amount in controversy; the first is conceded so that the second is the only issue. Article Third of the complaint alleges generally that the "matter in controversy" does exceed $3,000, but the defendant argues that it appears from the particular allegations which appear later in the complaint that this is untrue; and it is therefore necessary to state the substance of these. The defendant is a Montana corporation doing all its business in New York. It owned mines in the State of Washington, and, presumably to get money to develop them, on May 22, 1917, secured $50,000 by means of 100 "certificates" of $500 each, representing "participations" in a contract between it and one, Lonergan, in which it promised Lonergan to pay a royalty of "six cents a unit on all copper produced" by it until the $50,000 were paid, and thereafter "the further sum of three cents a unit". (A "unit" was twenty pounds of copper.) Later it secured an additional $250,000 by the issue of similar "participation certificates" in a second contract between itself and Lonergan, agreeing to pay the "sum of three cents a unit on all copper produced". These "certificates" the complaint calls the "First" and "Second Royalty Certificates". Finally, on May 15, 1922, the defendant's shareholders authorized it to issue 10,000 "Participating Contracts" of the par value of $200 each, by which it agreed to set aside "20¢ a dry ton on all ores produced * * * the proceeds of which shall be divided pro rata among the registered owners of the 10,000 participating contracts * * * and this Certificate shall be a charge only against the said special fund and not on the property or other assets of the Company." Between May 15, 1922, and January 1, 1940, the defendant sold more than 4,000 of these "Participating Contracts," and agreed with each of their holders to develop its mines, "extract therefrom in large and paying quantities, and have treated and sold the minerals and ores therein contained." On December 4, 1939, the defendant's board of directors voted to abandon the business, dissolve the company, and distribute the assets, and this the shareholders ratified on January 4, 1940 (or on August 6, 1940, which of the two does not definitely appear). The complaint alleged as a default upon the "First" and "Second Royalty Certificates" and on the "Participating Contracts," that the company had neglected to operate its mines in accordance with the agreements. It also alleged that if the holders of these three issues were "creditors," the company was insolvent, but that the company denied that they were creditors and asserted that its shareholders were entitled to the assets which it proposed to distribute among them. The plaintiff is the owner of seven two hundred dollar "Participating Contracts" ($1,400). He prays the following relief: that the holders of all three series be declared creditors entitled to be paid in priority to the shareholders; that certain provisions in the defendant's charter and in the certificates of shares be declared void; and "that the distribution of the proceeds realized from the sale of the corporate assets be enjoined until the determination of the issues raised in this court, and that then they be distributed in accordance with the judgment to be entered in this court." The district judge decided that the amount in controversy was the par value of the plaintiff's "seven participating contracts" 35 F.Supp. 400, 401; and, as this was not enough to give the court jurisdiction, he dismissed the complaint.
The parties and the judge speak of this as an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramer v. U.S.
...as it finds, and by finding `declares,' that the plaintiff has those rights on which the remedy must be based[.]" Corcoran v. Royal Dev. Co., 121 F.2d 957, 959 (2d Cir.1941). To a certain extent, then, all judgments are declaratory in nature, "but it is absurd to speak of a judgment as `dec......
-
Council of Western Elec. Tech. Emp. v. Western Elec. Co., 24
...P. H. Co., 141 N.J.Eq. 379, 55 A.2d 250, 259, 173 A.L.R. 1185; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, § 237(d). 5 Corcoran v. Royal Development Co., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 957, 959. 6 § 185, Title 29 7 Signal-Stat Corporation v. Local 475, 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 298, 301-302. ...
-
Walker v. Bank of America National Trust & Sav. Ass'n
...on the ground of fraud (denied by order of May 19, 1958). 2 See Corcoran v. Royal Development Co., D.C.N.Y., 35 F.Supp. 400, affirmed 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 957; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. United States, D.C.Ky., 106 F. Supp. 999, affirmed 6 Cir., 221 F.2d 698. Appellant may also be contending tha......
-
Funk v. ACME INDUSTRIES
...Highway Commission, 264 U.S. 308, 44 S.Ct. 340, 68 L.Ed. 701; Corcoran v. Royal Development Co., D. C., 35 F.Supp. 400, affirmed, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 957, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 691, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. ...