Middleton v. General Water Works & Electric Corporation
Decision Date | 29 October 1931 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 532. |
Citation | 224 Ala. 268,139 So. 273 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | MIDDLETON v. GENERAL WATER WORKS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION. |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1931.
Further Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; Emmet S. Thigpen Judge.
Action of assumpsit by R. C. Middleton against the General Water Works & Electric Corporation. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Stokely Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, and Wood & Hawkins, all of Birmingham, and E. O. Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellant.
Rushton Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, and A. R. Powell, of Andalusia, for appellee.
The case sought to be made out by plaintiff is well stated in special count 6. We set same out in full, as follows:
The gravamen of the count is breach of a contractual obligation to complete the purchase of the capital stock of Little Cahaba Coal Company, pay over the $1,000,000, out of which fund plaintiff was to receive his commission of $50,000.
As long as the transaction was in negotiation, only the defendant was free to abandon the project.
The relevancy and materiality of certain rulings on testimony assigned as error turn on their tendency, in connection with the whole evidence, to establish the vital inquiry: Was there an agreement upon the price of the stock, and an agreement to take the stock at that price?
General Water Works & Electric Corporation is a Delaware corporation, incorporated in May, 1928. Its corporate powers are plenary. Besides the power to own and operate waterworks and electric plants, as indicated by the corporate name, it has the charter power to own and operate public utilities generally; and general powers broad enough to include a coal mining business.
It is in the nature of a holding company, acquiring ownership by the purchase of the stock of subsidiaries, and usually operating in their several names.
During the first year of operations, down to the date of the transactions here involved, it had acquired control and ownership by stock transfers of numerous waterworks, electric power plants, and some other public utilities located in many states. Its operations were confined to the field of public utilities. It had not entered the field of coal mining. The main office was at Fort Worth, Tex.
Contracts had been entered into looking to the purchase of certain waterworks and electric plants in Southeast Alabama, and headquarters established at Andalusia.
Allan J. Smith, vice president, was, with the knowledge and approval of the corporate body, general manager of the corporation.
In May, 1929, the plaintiff, Mr. Middleton, interested Mr. Smith in a proposition to purchase the coal mine of Little Cahaba Coal Company, known as the Piper mine, in Bibb county, with a view to the erection of a steam electric plant on Little Cahaba river, near the mouth of the mine, to supply current for this and neighboring mines, and probably connecting up with the Southeast Alabama plants.
Mr. Smith sent to Birmingham, David Stewart, an engineer, with a letter to Mr. Middleton, showing Stewart was empowered to make a full investigation of all phases of the proposition, and report thereon.
Investigation and negotiations with the management of the coal company participated in by Mr. Smith, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Middleton, proceeded concurrently for some weeks, during which time an option on the stock was taken, in the name of Mr. Middleton, and a written agreement with the stockholders of the coal company to pay Mr. Middleton 5 per cent. commissions, if, as, and when the money was paid over to them...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Belcher v. Birmingham Trust National Bank
...of the company's business . . ." (Emphasis supplied) Sheip, Inc. v. Baer, 210 Ala. 231, 97 So. 698. In Middleton v. General Water Works & Electric Corp., 224 Ala. 268, 139 So. 273, the vice-president and general manager of a waterworks and electric corporation, which was in the nature of a ......
-
Glidden Co. v. Laney
... ... L.R.A.1918D, 540. It is against a corporation and its general ... manager and credit manager, ... Middleton v. General Water Works & Electric Co., 224 ... ...
-
Middleton v. General Water Works & Electric Corporation
...v. GENERAL WATER WORKS & ELECTRIC CORP. 4 Div. 726.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 29, 1933 Certiorari to Court of Appeals. See, also, 224 Ala. 268, 139 So. 273. Scrivner, Dominick & Smith and Basil A. Wood, all of Birmingham, for the motion. A. R. Powell, of Andalusia, opposed. KNIGHT, Justic......
-
Middleton v. General Water Works & Electric Corporation
...Affirmed. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Middleton v. General Water Works & Electric Corporation, 149 So. 352. See, also, 224 Ala. 268, 139 So. 273. Stokely, Scrivner, Dominick & Smith and A. Wood, all of Birmingham, for appellant. A. R. Powell, of Andalusia, for appellee. BRICKEN, P......