In re Desnoyers Shoe Co.
Citation | 224 F. 372 |
Decision Date | 20 May 1915 |
Docket Number | 2106. |
Parties | In re DESNOYERS SHOE CO. v. SANGAMON LOAN & TRUST CO. et al. DOZIER |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appellant, Dozier, a wealthy business man, after some conversations with W. L. desnoyers, president of the bankrupt Desnoyers Shoe Company, as to the advisability of his investing money in the Desnoyers business and of having them provide a place for his 21 year old son, expressed his willingness to put in $50,000 and asked Desnoyers to draw up a paper covering the arrangement reached. Thereupon Desnoyers dictated the following document, dated January 24 1911, on the letterhead of the company:
'W. L. Desnoyers, Pres.
'W. L. Desnoyers.'
He handed this document to Dozier, who, after reading it, said, 'You seem to have covered the case completely,' and thereupon handed him his check for $50,000, payable to the bankrupt. At the same time, Desnoyers gave Dozier a check for $1,316.67 as interest at 6 per cent. on the $50,000 to July 1st. On the following day the $50,000 check was cashed. On June 27, 1911, Dozier received a further check of $516.67, as interest from July 1st to September 1st. Entries covering each of these transactions were made on the general ledger of the bankrupt in an account opened up with Dozier. No other entries appear on this account. The testimony does not show that Dozier had any knowledge of how his account was carried on the company's books.
At a directors' meeting, held February 6, 1911, some question was raised as to the right of Desnoyers to assure Dozier that the stockholders of the company would carry out the agreement. Desnoyers said, in answer to an inquiry of one of the directors as to what would happen if the stockholders failed to increase the stock, that in that event the money would be paid back to Dozier. While Desnoyers' testimony is, in some respects, apparently contradictory and uncertain, it seems clear from his entire testimony that at no time did he and Dozier discuss the possibility of a failure to increase the capital stock, or of any circumstance under which the money should or must be returned. Dozier, because of ill health, did not appear as a witness.
The minutes of the directors' meeting of February 6th show the following resolution:
Subsequently Desnoyers gave out the following statement to commercial agencies and to some of the large creditors:
"Statement of the Desnoyers Shoe Company, Jan. 1st, 1911. "Assets. Real estate, machinery, etc................. $230,913.61 Bills receivable .............................. 2,600.00 Accounts receivable ............ $88,712.33 Less doubtful .................. 800.00 87,912.33 Inventories and prepaid items ............... 250,941.67 Cash L. D. Dozier .............. $50,000 Cash ........................... 11,832.02 61,832.02 ----------- ----------- $634,199.63 "Liabilities. Accounts payable ........................... $254,539.10 20,000.00 ----------- ----------- $274,539.10
'The real estate item consists of modern brick factory building in Springfield, Ill., with an area of 75,000 square feet of floor space, all thoroughly sprinklered (insurance rate 15 cents per hundred dollars), having a frontage of 320 feet on a paved avenue, by 420 feet on the Wabash Railroad. This is not outlying property, but is well downtown and surrounded on all sides by the homes of working people.
'All the items as listed above were compiled by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brookings v. Scudder
... ... payments thereon, and Rogers's continuation in the ... employment of the company. In re Desnoyers Shoe Co., ... 224 F. 372, 376. (2) There has been no breach of the contract ... by Rogers. (a) Rogers is still in the employment of the ... ...
-
Wilkinson v. Walker
...Mfg. Co. (D.C.) 192 F. 392; In re Rieger et al. (D.C.) 157 F. 609; Wallerstein v. Ervin, 112 F. 124, 50 C.C.A. 129; In re Desnoyers Shoe Co., 224 F. 372, 140 C.C.A. 58. These authorities, and they may be multiplied, support very healthy commercial rule that no person or corporation can carr......
-
Horn v. Abts
...Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417, 11 S. Ct. 530, 35 L. Ed. 227; In re Racine Auto Tire Co. (C. C. A.) 290 F. 939; In re Desnoyers Shoe Co. (C. C. A.) 224 F. 372; In re Rombach & Co. (C. C. A.) 9 F. (2d) 359; In re American Aluminum Metal Products Co. (D. C. Cal.) 15 F.(2d) The judgment is re......
-
In re American Aluminum Metal Products Co.
...Auto Tire Co. (C. C. A.) 290 F. 939; Allen v. Commercial National Bank of Detroit, 191 F. 97, 111 C. C. A. 577; In re Desnoyers Shoe Co., 224 F. 372, 140 C. C. A. 58; Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations, vol. 2, § 716; Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co., 164 Cal. 464, 470, 129 P. 582, 44 L......