Groel v. United Electric Co. of New Jersey
Decision Date | 18 April 1905 |
Citation | 69 N.J.E. 397,60 A. 822 |
Parties | GROEL v. UNITED ELECTRIC CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by Adam H. Groel against the United Electric Company of New Jersey and others. Heard on bill and plea of defendant the United Gas Improvement Company to the jurisdiction. Plea overruled.
See 59 Atl. 640.
The issue is raised upon a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. The complainant, a resident of New Jersey, filed his bill against the United Electric Company of Now Jersey and the United Gas Improvement Company, a corporation of the state of Pennsylvania. He is a stockholder of the United Electric Company of New Jersey, and the suit is brought by him in virtue of that fact; his allegation being that the company should have brought this suit, but would not. The bill charges: That the United Electric Company of New Jersey was incorporated on the 4th of March, 1899, with an authorized capital stock of $20,000,000, divided into 200,000 shares, of $100 each. That said corporation was organized and promoted by and at the instance of the United Gas Improvement Company, its incorporators being the mere agents and representatives of the United Gas Improvement Company, and that said incorporators paid in $4,500 for 15 shares of the capital stock, which money was furnished by the United Gas Improvement Company. That simultaneously with the incorporation of the United Electric Company of New Jersey the United Gas Improvement Company, through the Fidelity Trust Company of New Jersey, its agent, offered to the holders of the capital stock of a large number of corporations, incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, to purchase or acquire from them their stock in said various companies in exchange for bonds of the United Electric Company of New Jersey. That this offer was made to the stockholders of the People's Light & Power Company, the Consumer's Light, Heat & Power Company, the North Hudson Light, Heat & Power Company, the Morris County Electric Company, and to the stockholders of many other companies, the names of which companies are not given. That complainant was a stockholder of the People's Light & Power Company. That to the stockholders of that company the offer of the United Gas Improvement Company, through the Fidelity Trust Company, was to pay to them, for each $1,000 of their stock in the People's Company, $1,750 in bonds of the United Electric Company of New Jersey, out of a total issue of $20,000,000 of said bonds, provided said stockholders would, in addition to the surrender of their stock, pay the sum of $200 in cash. The United Gas Improvement Company agreed to guaranty the payment of the interest on the bonds of the United Electric Company of New Jersey for a period of five years, and to turn into the treasury of the United Electric Company the cash above referred to. It was further stated in said offer that the United Gas Improvement Company owned the control of the stock of the United Electric Company of New Jersey, and that it agreed to sell to those stockholders of the People's Light & Power Company who avail themselves of the said offer stock in the United Electric Company of New Jersey to the amount of 25 per cent., at par, of their holdings of stock in the People's Light & Power Company, to be paid for by such stockholders at the rate of $30 per share; the par value of each share being $100. That the offer aforesaid was accepted by substantially all of the holders of the capital stock of the companies named above, and that such stockholders deposited their stock certificates with the Fidelity Trust Company, and paid the sums of money required by the offer to be paid by them, and that many of such stockholders availed themselves of the offer to purchase the shares of the capital stock of the United Ellectric Company, and paid to the Fidelity Trust Company the sums required by them for such purchase, and received from the United Gas Improvement Company, through the Fidelity Trust Company, the shares of stock of the United Electric Company and the bonds in accordance with said offer and acceptance. That the United Gas Improvement Company kept for itself the entire capital stock of the United Electric Company of New Jersey, over and above the amount sold to the stockholders of the subsidiary companies, as above described. That this secret profit of the United Gas Improvement Company was obtained without disclosing to the stockholders of the subsidiary companies the facts, and that it was in fraud of the rights of the United Electric Company and its stockholders, including the complainant, who had accepted the offer of the United Gas Improvement Company, and obtained stock and bonds of the United Electric Company in accordance therewith. That the complainant was unaware of the facts until shortly before filing this bill, and on the 11th of August, 1903, he addressed and delivered to the president and directors of the United Electric Company of New Jersey a letter setting forth the facts, and requesting that company to bring an action for the recovery of the unlawful and secret profits made by the United Gas Improvement Company, and that said United Electric Company of New Jersey refused to bring said suit. After praying for discovery of various matters, the complainant asks that the amount of the secret profits made by the United Gas Improvement Company may be ascertained, and may be decreed to be paid to the United Electric Company, and that the amount of damage suffered by the United Electric Company by reason of the fraudulent acts and transactions of the United Gas Improvement Company may be ascertained, and may be decreed to be paid to the United Electric Company, and for further relief.
To this bill the defendant the United Gas Improvement Company filed the following plea: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Hays
...Co., 51 N.E. 55; 173 Ill. 439; Ceaser v. Capell, 83 F. 403; Brooks v. Nevada Nickel Synd., 53 P. 597, 24 Nev. 311; Groel v. United Electrical Co., 60 A. 822; N.J.Eq. 397. (2) The incapacity to sue cannot be cured and the contract cannot be validated by compliance after suit and before trial......
-
Swetland v. Swetland
...This practice seems to have been uniformly followed in this state. Hervey v. Hervey, 56 N. J. Eq. 166, 38 A. 767; Groel v. United Electric Company, 69 N. J. Eq. 397, 60 A. 822; Ewald v. Ortynsky, 77 N. J. Eq. 76, 75 A. 577, affirmed 78 N. J. Eq. 527, 79 A. 270; Allman v. United Brotherhood,......
-
Kluver v. Middlewest Grain Co.
... ... Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U.S. 405, ... 49 L.Ed. 810; Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. (Minn.) ... 152 N.W. 410 ... A ... 147, 47 L.Ed. 987; ... Davis v. K. & T. Coal Co. 129 F. 149; Groel v ... United Electric Co. 69 N.J.Eq. 397, 60 A. 822. And to ... like ... ...
-
Jurewicz v. Locals 129713922343 Of United Bhd. Of Carpenters
...730, 55 A. 997; Andrews v. Guayaquil & Q. R. Co., 69 N.J.Eq. 211, 60 A. 568, affirmed 71 N.J.Eq. 768, 71 A. 1133; Groel v. United Electric Co., 69 N.J.Eq. 397, 60 A. 822; Lanning v. Twining, 71 N.J.E.q. 573, 64 A. 466; Amparo Mining Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 74 N.J.Eq. 197, 71 A. 605, affi......