Dow v. River Farms Co. of Cal.
Decision Date | 18 April 1952 |
Citation | 243 P.2d 95,110 Cal.App.2d 403 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | DOW v. RIVER FARMS CO. OF CALIFORNIA. Civ. 15009. |
W. P. Caubu, Robert E. Halsing, San Francisco, (Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher, San Francisco, of counsel), for appellants.
Devlin, Diepenbrock & Wulff, Sacramento, for respondent.
Plaintiff, Maxine B. Dow, is the widow of Edgar Laurence Dow, and the administratrix of his estate. In her representative capacity, on December 6, 1949, she brought this action against the River Farms Company of California to recover from it the sum of $50,000, alleging that the corporation had promised and agreed but failed to pay that sum to her husband. The corporation admitted that it had offered to pay Dow $50,000, but averred in its answer that Dow rejected the offer, that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, and that there was no consideration for the promise. The trial court found in favor of the defendant on all issues, and plaintiff appeals.
Edgar Laurence Dow, a retired dentist, in 1913 incorporated the respondent corporation. He became a stockholder, director, president and general manager of the company at its inception, and remained as such until the time of his death in 1930. His estate is still in the course of administration, and appellant, who is now a director and, as administratrix, a stockholder of the company, is the administratrix of his estate.
From 1913 to the end of 1917 Dr. Dow served as president and general manager of the company without compensation. Starting on January 1, 1918, and continuing until his death in 1930, he received a salary of $1,000 per month for these services.
On July 9, 1917, the then board of directors met. Dr. Dow presided. He was requested to leave the room. In his absence the directors discussed paying Dr. Dow for his past services. They then passed the following resolution:
'Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that it would be an injustice in view of the services rendered by Dr. Dow not to in some measure compensate him therefor, and
'Be It Further Resolved, that whenever this company has no floating indebtedness or on or about January 1st, 1918, the Vice President and the Secretary be and they are hereby authorized and directed for and in the name of this company and as its act to make a cash payment to E. L. Dow of the sum of $50,000 for and in consideration of his past services rendered, and
'Be It Further Resolved: That from and after January 1st, 1918 said E. L. Dow, as president of this company be paid the sum of $1,000 per month for his services as such.'
After the resolution was passed Dr. Dow was recalled to the room. There is a conflict as to what then occurred. John F. Humburg, who, at the time of trial was one of the two directors then surviving, and who was then still a director, testified that Dr. Dow was greatly surprised and then stated: 'I cannot accept it.' Hiram Johnson, Jr., who is the other surviving director who was present at the July, 1917, meeting, and who is also still a director, testified that Dr. Dow did not then or thereafter refuse to accept the $50,000 mentioned in the resolution.
After the July 9, 1917, meeting, Dr. Dow prepared a letter addressed to the directors formally rejecting the $50,000 payment and tendering his resignation. There was a controversy at the trial, and much is said in the briefs, as to whether this letter was ever signed by Dr. Dow. The original had been lost. The copy was not signed. A copy of this letter was attached to the answer showing a signature, and appellant failed to file the affidavit required by section 448 of the Code of Civil Procedure within the time there provided. She did move for relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the commencement of the trial, and the trial court permitted the filing of the affidavit and motion for relief, but indicated that it was taking the matter under advisement. The record does not show whether the motion was ever passed upon. Regardless of these facts, however, director Humburg testified that in the August, 1917, meeting of the board, Dr. Dow read the letter to the board, that the matter was then discussed Johnson while he denied hearing the letter read, admitted that he had seen, at that time, an unsigned copy of it. This conflict was resolved by the trial court in favor of respondent. Therefore, whether the letter was signed or not is not an important matter--it was read to and considered by the board.
The letter reads as follows:
'San Francisco, July 21, 1917.
'San Francisco, California.
'Dear Sirs:
'I have carefully considered the very generous offer made by this board and expressed in a resolution passed at the last meeting in which you offered to pay me for services rendered this company, the sum of $50,000.00 on or about January 1, 1918 and a salary of $1,000.00 a month from that date.
'It has been brought to my attention, however, that the action of this board at its last meeting was not satisfactory to some of the stockholders of this company.
There is no reference in the minutes of the July or August, 1917, meetings to this letter, nor was there a formal rescission of any part of the July resolution, nor do the books of the company contain any further reference to this $50,000 item. There is no evidence that Dr. Dow ever made a demand for the $50,000, and admittedly Mrs. Dow made no such demand until the filing of this suit. We do know that Dr. Dow continued to act as president of the board, and that starting January 1, 1918, and until his death in 1930, he received $1,000 a month for his services.
The complaint, in an attempt to avoid the statute of limitations, alleges that the corporation first became free of floating indebtedness in 1948. Much of the record is devoted to a discussion of this problem. The trial court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.
...granted to the corporation. (See Dugan v. Pettijohn (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 133, 137--138, 285 P.2d 339; and Dow v. River Farms Co. (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 403, 408--409, 243 P.2d 95.) The same observations apply to plaintiff's contention that the note was given for benefits she would confer on......
-
Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...This transaction was a contract: the resolution of Amchem No. l's board of directors was an offer (see Dow v. River Farms Co. (1952) 110 Cal. App.2d 403, 243 P.2d 95; Hoge v. Lava Cap Gold Mining Corp. (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 176, 130 P.2d 470) and the resolution of Amchem No. 2's board of di......
-
Jara v. Suprema Meats, Inc.
...231 [written agreement revising contractor's obligation after performance was rendered and payment due]; Dow v. River Farms Co. (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 403, 410-411, 243 P.2d 95 [corporate resolution to pay officer $50,000 for past services in the absence of any expectation of payment when se......
-
Queen of Angels Hospital v. Younger
...promise to pay for past services (e.g., Walsh v. Parker, 24 Cal.App.2d 224, 229--230, 74 P.2d 531, but cf. Dow v. River Farms Co., 110 Cal.App.2d 403, 410--411, 243 P.2d 95), as the Attorney General points out, the compromise 'bore no relationship whatsoever to a traditional retirement plan......