Pacific American Gasoline Co. of Texas v. Miller, 4266.
Decision Date | 15 October 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 4266.,4266. |
Parties | PACIFIC AMERICAN GASOLINE CO. OF TEXAS et al. v. MILLER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; W. E. Gee, Judge.
Action by Horace G. Miller and others against the Pacific American Gasoline Company of Texas and others, in which Evan O. Thomas Company intervened. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed except as to intervener Evan O. Thomas Company, and as to it reversed and rendered without prejudice.
See, also, 61 S.W.(2d) 1024; 74 S.W.(2d) 720.
Otis Trulove and L. M. Fischer, both of Amarillo, Lyndsay D. Hawkins, of Breckenridge, and Walter David, of Borger, for appellants.
Weeks, Morrow & Francis, of Wichita Falls, and Morgan, Culton, Morgan & Britain, of Amarillo, for appellees.
This foreword, because of the great size and unusual character of the record: The appellees are holders of notes of approximately $140,000 in amount. The appellants are the Pacific American Gasoline Company of Texas (called herein the Gasoline Company), the J. M. Huber Petroleum Company (called herein the Petroleum Company), the J. M. Huber Company of Louisiana, Inc. (called herein the Carbon Company), and R. C. Ware, trustee. Of the appellants named the first is a domestic corporation, the second a Delaware corporation, and the third a Louisiana corporation. Their interrelation is stated hereafter, and as well also as their respective interests in the subject-matter of the present litigation.
Suit was brought in the district court of Potter county by appellees for the interest on so-called "gold notes" issued by said Pacific American Gasoline Company of Texas. Other relief was asked, the nature of which will later appear herein.
The trial court peremptorily instructed the jury against appellants and entered the judgment hereafter shown.
One of the major legal questions presented for our determination is that arising from appellants' contention that all of said notes are void, in that they represent a "fictitious indebtedness" created in contravention to the terms of article 12, § 6, of our state Constitution, which reads as follows: "No corporation shall issue stock or bonds except for money paid, labor done or property actually received, and all fictitious increase of stock or indebtedness shall be void."
This compels us to make a lengthy and involved statement of the facts which surround the note issue in question, including the reproduction verbatim of several written documents which vitally affect the questions decided by us.
In 1928 the Southwestern Engineering Corporation of California, and the Caltex Syndicate, an unincorporated partnership, owned or had claims against properties in Hutchinson county, Tex. Their investment in these amounted to some $250,000. They consisted of a casing-head gasoline plant, certain casing-head gas contracts, and other oil and gas properties nearby. Their investment at this time was not remunerative, and they were desirous of either disposing of these properties or of making them produce an income. To this end negotiations were begun with Masten and others of California. Masten was a highly efficient executive, and had been unusually successful in the production and sale of casing-head gasoline. The negotiations resulted in the execution of the following preliminary agreement:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tigrett v. Pointer
...Inc. v. Lord, 399 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1966, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Pacific American Gasoline Co. v. Miller, 76 S.W.2d 833, 851 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1934, writ ref'd); Continental Supply Co. v. Forrest E. Gilmore Co., 55 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1932, writ......
-
Castleberry v. Branscum
...the corporate fiction is relied upon as a protection of crime or to justify wrong. 3 Pacific American Gasoline Co. of Texas v. Miller, 76 S.W.2d 833, 851 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1934, writ ref'd). See also Roy E. Thomas Const. Co. v. Arbs, 692 S.W.2d 926, 938 (Tex.App.--Ft. Worth 1985), wri......
-
Fielder v. Parker
... ... Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland ... June 17, 1938 ... Rehearing ... , Id., Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 836); Miller v. Burnet Merc. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 505; ... & W. Co., 120 Tex. 27, 34 S.W.2d 845; American Fruit Growers v. Sutherland, Tex.Civ.App., 50 ... App., 90 S.W.2d 617; Pacific American ... Gasoline Co. v. Miller, ... ...
-
Gibraltar Sav. v. LDBrinkman Corp.
...operated as a mere tool or business conduit of another corporation.' " 721 S.W.2d at 272 (quoting Pacific Am. Gas. Co. v. Miller, 76 S.W.2d 833, 851, (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1934, writ ref'd)). Many wholly-owned subsidiaries and closely-held corporations are not factually distinct from thei......