Hirschfeld v. McKinley
Decision Date | 20 May 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 7414.,7414. |
Parties | HIRSCHFELD v. McKINLEY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Henderson Stockton, Frank H. Lyman, and Leon S. Jacobs, all of Phœnix, Ariz., for appellant.
Thomas W. Nealon, of Phœnix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.
From a decree of the court below directing the trustee in bankruptcy of the Hollander Drug Company, a corporation, forthwith to make an assessment of 100 per cent. upon the company's common stock, the present appeal has been brought to this court.
In May, 1931, E. M. Hollander and Dr. R. W. Craig orally agreed that a corporation was to be formed to conduct a drug business. The drug store was to occupy premises owned by the Central Avenue Investment Company of Phœnix, Ariz., a corporation of which Dr. Craig owned the entire capital stock, except two qualifying shares. The agreement was that when the drug company was organized, $7,500 of preferred stock was to be issued to Dr. Craig for the money that he put into the enterprise, and preferred stock was to be issued to Hollander for the amount of the appraised value of the stock and fixtures belonging to the latter, as laid down in Phœnix. The appraisement later made disclosed the value of those physical assets to be $11,500.
The common stock of the new corporation was to be divided equally between Dr. Craig and Hollander. C. T. Washburn became a stockholder of the company, holding two shares of common stock, and acted as an officer solely for the convenience of Dr. Craig.
Shortly after the series of conversations that culminated in the agreement above referred to, Dr. Craig made a trip to Evansville, Ind., to investigate Hollander. That trip was made by Dr. Craig as president of the Central Avenue Investment Company, the expenses being paid by that company.
In accordance with the agreement between Dr. Craig and Hollander, and with the understanding that a corporation was to be later organized to carry out their agreement, the Hollander Drug Company commenced operation as a drug store, occupying premises owned by the Investment Company.
The articles of incorporation were executed by Hollander, Ben L. Rudderow, and Don C. Babbitt. The last two named were attorneys in the office of Frank H. Lyman, who had drawn up and dictated the articles. Mr. Lyman described Mr. Rudderow and Mr. Babbitt as "mere supernumeraries * * * for purely mechanical purposes for organizing the corporation."
The certificate of incorporation was issued by the Arizona Corporation Commission on August 12, 1931. The articles of incorporation named Dr. Craig as statutory agent.
Rudderow and Babbitt participated with Hollander in the organization meeting held on August 13, 1931. At that meeting Hollander acted as chairman and Rudderow as secretary. From the minutes of the meeting, which were signed by Hollander and Dr. Craig, it appears that a list was opened to receive subscriptions of shares of the capital stock of the corporation. The list reads in part as follows:
The minutes show that, at the meeting of the board of directors held immediately following the organization meeting, the secretary reported that all 500 shares of the common stock had been subscribed. Rudderow thereupon resigned as director of the company, and tendered an assignment of one share of the common stock to C. T. Washburn. After Rudderow's resignation had been accepted, Hollander nominated Dr. Craig, "a holder of common stock in said company," for director. Dr. Craig was unanimously so elected. Babbitt also tendered his resignation, together with an assignment of one share of the common stock to Washburn, who was unanimously elected director. The board of directors elected Hollander president, Washburn vice president, and Dr. Craig secretary and treasurer.
The following resolution was then adopted by unanimous vote of the directors:
Thereupon, Dr. Craig proposed to buy 75 shares of the preferred stock at the par value of $100 and pay therefor in cash. His offer was accepted and the secretary was directed to deliver the shares to Dr. Craig. Hollander then proposed to transfer to the company a stock of drugs and fixtures at a value acceptable to the board of directors, and to take payment therefor in shares of preferred stock, at the par value of $100 each. Hollander's proposition was accepted.
In accordance with the resolution and the minutes quoted above, certificates of preferred and common stock were issued to the various shareholders. Most of those certificates were signed both by Dr. Craig, as secretary, and by Hollander, as president.
As to the consideration paid by Dr. Craig for his common stock, the Doctor himself testified as follows: The parties seem to be in virtual agreement that the consideration paid by Dr. Craig for his stock was grossly inadequate. Referring to the case of In re Phoenix Hardware Co. (Long v. Christy) (C. C. A. 9) 249 F. 410, the appellee says in his brief:
The appellant states:
The master's finding on this subject, confirmed by the court below, was as follows: "* * * that no payment was ever made by R. W. Craig for the common stock issued to him * * *." The appellee did not file any exceptions to the master's report and has presented no cross-appeal.
The record shows that the par value of Dr. Craig's 249 shares was $24,900.
In his petition, the appellee averred: "That said corporation, its officers, directors, managers and agents represented to the public at all times since its organization and the issuance of said stock as herein set out, that its capital stock to the extent of $50,000.00 for common stock and $19,000.00 for preferred stock, had been subscribed for and had been, or would be paid in full, and relying on such representations the public, and especially the creditors of said corporation extended credit to said corporation in the amount and to the extent hereinafter set forth."
The appellee also alleged:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Herter
...of all creditors' rights, and should not be supported by the Court absent compelling circumstances. See also Hirschfeld v. McKinley, 78 F.2d 124, 135 (9th Cir.1935) (explaining that a chapter 7 trustee represents the interests of all unsecured creditors, and not any particular individual cr......
-
General Beverages v. Rogers
...218; Memphis & L. R. Co. v. Dow, 120 U.S. 287, 7 S.Ct. 482, 30 L.Ed. 595. The Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in Hirschfield v. McKinley, 1935, 78 F.2d 124, which went up from Arizona, fully supports the views we take The short answer to this case is that, under appellant's own theory......
-
W.H.I., Inc. v. Courter
...inaction of a party to it can validate it; and no conduct of a party to it can be invoked as an estoppel against asserting its invalidity." Id.; also Colby, 117 P. at 918. In this instance, the Amended Declarations are challenged by the Unit Owners as-and have been ruled as being-void ab in......
-
W.H.I., Inc. v. Courter
...or instrument which is void because it violates an express mandate of the law or the dictates of public policy." Hirschfeld v. McKinley, 78 F.2d 124, 133 (9th Cir. 1935) (citing Colby v. Title Ins. & Tr. Co., 117 P. 913, 918 (Cal. 1911)). Indeed, an instrument which was never valid "has no ......