Mann v. German-American Investment Company

Decision Date02 December 1903
Docket Number12,701
Citation97 N.W. 600,70 Neb. 454
PartiesGUSTAVE A. MANN, APPELLEE, v. GERMAN-AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, APPELLANT
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

APPEAL from the district court for Adams county: ED L. ADAMS, JUDGE. Reversed and dismissed.

REVERSED.

Frank P. Olmstead, for appellant.

Robert S. Batty and Harry S. Dungan, contra.

GLANVILLE C. BARNES and ALBERT, CC., concur.

OPINION

GLANVILLE, C.

This action is one commenced by the plaintiff, appellee, by filing in the district court for Adams county his petition in equity; and the case may best be reasoned by first giving a copy of the petition in full. The petition is as follows:

"Plaintiff complains of the defendant and says:

"1. That at all times hereinafter stated the defendant is and was a corporation duly incorporated and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Nebraska, with an alleged capital stock of $ 60,000, divided into shares of $ 100 each and engaged in the business of issuing contracts, copies of which are hereto attached, and made a part of this petition, and marked exhibits 'A' and 'B,' and in no other.

"2. That the incorporators were, and are, Fred Lilljeberg, John C. Kay and John M. Doyle. That there has been issued by the said corporation, approximately, 200 contracts, the exact number being to this plaintiff unknown, a portion of which were of the same form as exhibit 'A,' the balance, being denominated a diamond contract, as exhibit 'C.'

"That various persons purchased said contracts, their names being unknown to this plaintiff, except as hereinafter set forth. That the said Fred J. Lilljeberg, John M. Doyle, and John C. Kay held the first nine contracts, and applied the first $ 900 received by the said corporation to the payment thereof, and that, thereafter, the tenth contract was paid by the defendant to the aforesaid president, secretary and treasurer thereof. That since the tenth contract was paid on or about the day of , 1900, the said defendant has collected from the said contract holders a large sum of money, the exact amount being to this plaintiff unknown, and that, thereafter, to wit, on or about the 1st of February, 1901, the president and secretary of the defendant corporation attempted to sell and transfer the corporation and contracts, privileges and emoluments of the business and all rights and property interests therein, whatsoever, to one W. S. McAuley, and thereupon, pretended to resign their respective offices as president and secretary to the board of directors, who failed and refused to elect their successors, and have since refused and failed so to do. That the holders of the said alleged stock, if there be any, are to this plaintiff unknown. That, at the time of the said pretended transfer and sale, the said president and secretary had in their possession and under their control the sum of $ 369 belonging to, and forming a part of, the funds of the said defendant corporation, which they, the said secretary and president, failed and neglected to turn over to their alleged successor, or account for, but proceeded to draw from the bank the said sum, and appropriated the same to their own use and benefit, and have ever since refused and failed to account for the same, to the damage and prejudice of your petitioner. That since the pretended transfer, this plaintiff and various holders of contracts have paid to the said McAuley about $ 900, the exact amount being to this plaintiff unknown, who received the said sum and holds the same for defendant's use. That, according to the provisions of said contracts shown in exhibits 'A' and 'B,' 80 per cent. of all the funds received by the said corporation were to be and remain the absolute property of the holders of said contracts, and were to be applied in the retirement and discharge of the said contracts, consecutively, and in the order of their issue; said contract being the stock or shares of defendant corporation.

"3. The plaintiff avers, and charges the facts to be, that the defendant corporation, and its above named officer, has wholly failed to apply the funds received by it under the provisions of the said contracts to the payment and discharge of the contracts issued by said corporation, as provided by its rules and articles.

"4. The plaintiff further charges that he is the holder and owner of contract number 35, being filed herewith, and marked exhibit 'C,' and made a part of this petition, being one of the 200 contracts issued as herein charged, and has paid in to said company the sum of $ 80, and holds the said contract which is fully paid up according to the provisions thereof. That the money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, as aforesaid, constitutes a part of the funds herein charged to have been misapplied or in the hands of the pretended successor of the defendant corporation.

"5. Plaintiff further charges that the defendant has ceased to do business, has failed to elect officers or call an election for that purpose, has misapplied the funds, and attempted to convey all the corporate interests. All of which was done contrary to the power and authority invested in the said defendant corporation, and to the injury and damages of your petitioner.

"6. The plaintiff further alleges, and charges the facts to be, that defendant corporation has never had an election, has never issued certificates of stock other than the contracts herein set forth, and that there has never been an election of directors or officers, nor a legal adoption of rules or by-laws by the said defendant, and that the said president, secretary and treasurer have, at all times, acted wholly without authority, as plaintiff verily believes.

"Whereupon, the plaintiff prays the court to appoint a receiver to take charge and control of defendant corporation and all property belonging thereto, to collect the funds and apply them pro rata among the holders of said contracts, as the court may direct, and have such other and further relief as to the court may seem just."

Exhibit "C" referred to in said petition, being the contract under which the plaintiff claims, is as follows:

"DIAMOND CONTRACT. No. 35.

"Know all men by these presents: That if G. A. Mann, the holder hereof, shall first well and truly make each and all of the payments herein provided for, to be made by him at the times and in the manner herein specified, time, manner and the amount of payment being of the essence hereof, the German-American Investment Company, of Hastings, Nebraska, will deliver to him, or to his legal representatives or assigns, under and according to the terms and conditions and in the manner and order hereinafter set forth, a commercial white, clear and flawless diamond, of the weight of two carats, and of the value of $ 100 per carat.

"The holder hereof promises and agrees to pay to the company, at its home office, in the city of Hastings, the full sum of one hundred dollars in the following manner, to wit: Five dollars on the delivery hereof, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and one dollar and twenty-five cents on or before the last day of each calendar week following the date hereof, for sixty consecutive weeks. If he shall fail to pay any of said installments within the week in which it is payable, the said delinquent installment, together with the additional sum of twenty-five cents, may be paid at any time before the end of the next succeeding calendar week; but if he shall fail or neglect to pay any of said weekly installments at the time and in the manner herein provided, and shall continue in such default for more than one week, then, and in that event, this contract shall, because of such default, become and be wholly null and void, and all payments theretofore made thereon shall be forfeited.

"The weekly installments having been paid hereon to and inclusive of the sixtieth week, this contract shall be deemed fully paid up and nonforfeitable, and the holder shall be entitled to receive the diamond herein described, provided, however, that if, at such time, the amount in the hands of the company to the credit of this contract is not equal to the sum of $ 200 heretofore provided, then, the diamond shall not be delivered until the amount to the credit hereof shall equal that sum. Coincident with such delivery to the holder of a contract, of such diamond, he shall surrender his contract to the company for cancelation. The company shall employ one dollar of each weekly installment of one dollar and twenty-five cents paid in on this and other contracts, together with all fines, lapses and forfeitures accruing thereunder, in the purchase and delivery of the diamonds required for the performance of such contracts; and may retain all other sums paid in thereon, including the remaining twenty-five cents out of each weekly installment, for its own use and payment of all expenses. This contract is transferable, but no transfer will be recognized by the company unless first registered by the company, for which registration a fee of one dollar will be charged."

Exhibit "B" referred to is in the same form as exhibit "C," while exhibit "A" differs therefrom in that it provides for the payment of money to the contract holder, instead of the sale of a diamond.

The answer admits the allegations of paragraph 1 of the petition, and denies all others.

The judgment or order of the district court appealed from is as follows:

"It is therefore ordered that William Madgett be appointed receiver of the defendant corporation and all moneys, debts, effects, books and property of every description belonging...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Gillen v. Wakefield State Bank
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1929
    ...& Cold Storage Co., 68 Neb. 222, 94 N. W. 136,97 N. W. 613,63 L. R. A. 791, 110 Am. St. Rep. 400,4 Ann. Cas. 59;Mann v. German-American Investment Co., 70 Neb. 454, 97 N. W. 600;Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kan. 435. As said in Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich. 379, 8 N. W. 68: ‘This appointment of a r......
  • Seibert v. Harden
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1928
    ...cause of action against the defendant. Hartnett v. Mining Co., 51 Mont. 395; Price v. Bankers Trust Co. (Mo.), 178 S.W. 745; Mann v. German-American Co., 70 Neb. 454; Bros. v. Iron Co., 157 Mo. 565; Cantwell v. Columbia Lead Co., 199 Mo. 1. (4) The party applying for the appointment of a re......
  • Seibert v. Harden
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1928
    ...cause of action against the defendant. Hartnett v. Mining Co., 51 Mont. 395; Price v. Bankers Trust Co. (Mo.), 178 S.W. 745; Mann v. German-American Co., 70 Neb. 454; Pullis Bros. v. Iron Co., 157 Mo. 565; Cantwell v. Columbia Lead Co., 199 Mo. 1. (4) The party applying for the appointment ......
  • Jones v. Schaff Bros. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1915
    ... ... JONES, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the AUTOMATIC MUSIC COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE SCHAFF BROS. COMPANY a Corporation, Respondent Court ... District Court, 21 ... Mont. 155, 53 P. 272; 69 Am. St. 645; Mann v. German ... American Invest. Co., 70 Neb. 454; Railroad v ... Gay, 86 ... of a Bond Investment Company, and the latter that a receiver ... may be appointed for a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT