Hill v. Glasgow R. Co.
Decision Date | 17 August 1888 |
Parties | HILL v. GLASGOW R. Co. et al. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Kentucky |
Hargis & Eastin and Richards & Harris, for complainant.
Porter & McQuown and Walter Evans, for defendants.
The complainant, as a stockholder in the Glasgow Railroad Company, brings this suit to restrain the directors of said company from the misappropriation of the funds of said corporation. The case made by the bill is substantially this:
The Glasgow Railroad Company was chartered by the legislature of Kentucky by an act approved March 6, 1868, and was empowered to purchase the franchises and unfinished line of road in Barren county belonging to the Barren County Railroad Company, which had been previously chartered in 1856. This purchase was made, and the former company became vested with the rights, franchises, and property of the latter company. By an act of the legislature approved February 25, 1869, the charter of the Glasgow Railroad Company was so amended as to authorize the incorporators, out of their number, or out of such as might become members by subscription to its stock, to elect a board of directors, consisting of seven members. By said amendment, the town of Glasgow and precinct No. 1 of the county of Barren were authorized, upon proper vote of the citizens thereof, to subscribe for the stock of said railroad company, the town of Glasgow to the amount of 1,000 shares of said stock, and precinct No. 1 of said county to the amount of 4,000 shares; said shares being each for the sum of $25. Said subscriptions when voted, were, by the terms of the act, to be paid for in the bonds of said town and precinct respectively. Said bonds were directed to be made payable to the president and directors of said Glasgow Railroad Company, and were made negotiable by their written indorsement, were to be taken and received by the company in satisfaction of said subscription and were to mature in 20 years after date, bearing 7 per cent. interest, payable semi-annually. In pursuance of said authority, and after proper vote of the citizens thereof said subscriptions were duly made by said town and precinct and the bonds in payment thereof were issued to the railroad company, and were by the president and directors thereof indorsed and negotiated. The bonds so issued by the town of Glasgow, in payment of its subscription to the capital stock of the road, amounted to $25,000; while those issued by the precinct in payment of its subscription amounted to $100,000. Stock of the railroad company for said amounts was issued to the town of Glasgow and precinct No. 1 of Barren county, respectively, for said subscriptions so made and paid for, and said town and precinct thereby became and were regular stockholders in said railroad company for said sums.
Other subscriptions to the capital stock of the company were made by individuals to the amount of some $9,000. Said amendment of 1869 further provided that, for the taxes levied and paid by the tax-payers of said town and precinct to pay the interest on said bonds, said tax-payers should also be entitled to be stockholders in the railroad company to the extent of or for the amount of taxes so paid. Tax-receipts were to be issued to the tax-payers, which receipts were made negotiable. Certificates of stock were duly issued to the town of Glasgow and precinct No. 1 of Barren county, to the individual subscribers, and to numerous holders of such tax-receipts prior to the year 1880. The railroad company maintained its organization and operated its line of road, under said original and amendatory acts, until April 8, 1880, when another amendment of its charter was made by the legislature. Said amendment, so far as material to this case, was as follows:
Under and by virtue of the authority conferred by said amendment the town of Glasgow and precinct No 1 thereafter alone elected the board of directors for the company, and the directory so elected by these two stockholders subsequently leased the road to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for a term of years, at a stipulated annual rental. This rental, as received, was first applied to the payment of the debts of the company, which were extinguished by the summer of 1885, after which the directors commenced applying the proceeds or rental arising from the lease of the road to the payment of the bonds issued as aforesaid by the town of Glasgow and said precinct No 1, pro rata.
This application of the company's funds is the misappropriation or breach of trust and duty on the part of the directory which the bill complains of, and seeks to have restrained. The complainant alleges that he was a tax-payer in said town and precinct from 1870 to 1887; that as such he paid taxes to meet the interest on said bonds issued by said town and precinct in payment of their subscriptions to the capital stock of said company; that by reason of his payment of such taxes he held tax-receipts which entitled him to the rights of a stockholder; that he also purchased other tax-receipts, which were under the law convertible into stock; and that he was, in addition to said tax-receipts, the holder of certificates of stock in said railroad company when said directors, in 1885, commenced applying the company's funds to the payment of the bonds issued as aforesaid by said town and precinct. He alleges that he complained of and protested against the action of said directors, in so appropriating the company's assets, as being illegal and unauthorized by any valid law, and urged and requested said directory to desist form so doing, but that they have have steadily and persistently refused to respect his complaints and have continued, and are continuing, to so appropriate the company's funds as received, in disregard of the rights of himself, and other minority stockholders; that said town and precinct, holding a large majority of the stock, have the exclusive control of the company's affairs, with the sole and exclusive authority under the amendment of 1880 to select the seven directors of the company, and are thus wrongfully applying the funds of the corporation to the payment of their private debts incurred in obtaining the stock, which now enables them to assert the power of misapplying funds, belonging equally to all the stockholders, to their exclusive right and benefit. The complainant further alleges that said directors and stockholders refuse him any relief, or to change their action in the premises, after repeated applications on his part; that he brings this suit without collusion, for the benefit of the company, and of any and all stockholders who may choose to accept the benefits thereof; that the funds of the company already so misapplied by said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Larabee v. Dolley
...not the individual shareholder, and if it be granted the complainant derives only an incidental benefit from it.' In Hill v. Glasgow R. Co. (C.C.) 41 F. 610, which was action by a minority stockholder to restrain a claimed misapplication of the funds of the company, it is said: 'The positio......
-
Marion Mortgage Co. v. Edmunds
...A.) 63 F. (2d) 86; Hutchinson Box Board & Paper Co. v. Van Horn (C. C. A.) 299 F. 424; Larabee v. Dolley (C. C.) 175 F. 365; Hill v. Glasgow R. Co. (C. C.) 41 F. 610. The same principle has been applied to a suit by a fraternal benefit certificate holder to assert the rights of his associat......
-
Wallace v. Pierce-Wallace Pub. Co.
... ... Magee v. Geneseo Academy, 17 N.Y. S. R. 221; ... Wheeler v. Pullman Iron & S. Co., 143 Ill. 197, 17 ... L. R. A. 818; Neall v. Hill, 16 Cal. 145 (76 Am ... Dec. 508); La Societe Francaise v. Fifteenth Judicial ... District Ct., 53 Cal. 495; Mason v. Supreme Court of ... stockholder to sue by reason of his interest as such, and to ... have a receiver ... Hill v ... Glasgow Railway Co., 41 F. 610; Zabriskie v. Cleveland C. & C. Railway Co., 64 U.S. 23 How. 381, 16 L.Ed. 488; ... Edison v. Edison United Photograph ... ...
-
Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Co.
... ... assets of the corporation which the court is called upon to ... administer is regarded as determining the limit (Hill v ... Glasgow R. R. (C.C.) 41 F. 610; Towle v. American ... Building & Loan Society (C.C.) 60 F. 131; Taylor v ... Decatur Mineral Land Co ... ...