Proctor v. Farrar
Decision Date | 28 March 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 19595.,19595. |
Citation | 213 S.W. 469 |
Parties | PROCTOR et al. v. FARRAR et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Frank P. Divelbiss, Judge.
Suit by J. R. Proctor and others against S. F. Farrar and others. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Remanded, with directions.
This suit was brought in the circuit court for Caldwell county to the June term, 1913, by Ellisworth Upp, J. R. Proctor, and Joseph C. Russell, administrator of the estate of Samuel Russell, deceased, and against S. F. Farrar, J. R. Dalbey, and the Missouri & Alabama Land & Live Stock Company. The body of the petition is as follows:
An amended petition was afterward filed which it is not necessary to notice, and afterward the cause was transferred by change of venue to Livingston county, where a second amended petition was filed upon which the cause was tried. The plaintiff Upp having died in the meantime, his administrator was made a party plaintiff in his stead.
The second amended petition, in addition to the facts stated in the original petition, alleges that the authorized capital stock of the Missouri & Alabama Land & Live Stock Company consisted of 450 shares of $100 each, 420 shares of which had been issued, and that each of the plaintiffs, in the capacity mentioned, was the owner of 30 shares; that on October 30, 1911, and for a long time afterward, Creswell was president of said corporation, the defendant Dalbey, vice president, and the defendant Farrar, secretary and treasurer. All these were directors. George H. Ogden and plaintiffs Proctor and Russell were also directors. It set out with much detail the execution of the written authority under which Dalbey and Farrar acted in selling the turpentine right and ties mentioned in the original petition; the sale of the turpentine right for $24,000 and the ties at 6 cents each; their concealment of the amount received, and false representation that it had only been $12,000 for the turpentine right and 3 cents each for ties; their" conspiracy with Creswell and Ogden by which the latter signed the so-called contract in consideration of a part of the profits to be withheld from the corporation. The charging part concludes as follows:
The prayer for relief is as follows:
"Wherefore, plaintiffs pray the court to take an account of all the moneys and properties received by the defendants Farrar and Dalbey to account and pay to the defendant Missouri & Alabama Land & Live Stock Company the full purchase price of said turpentine rights and said tie timbers, together with 6 per cent. interest thereon from the date of the receipt of said moneys, and that judgment be rendered by this court for and on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Punch v. Hipolite Co.
...persons who were parties to the abuse of trust, and, therefore, no such request of directors or of the corporation was required. Proctor v. Farrar, 213 S.W. 475; Caldwell v. Eubanks, 20 S.W. (2d) 979; Hannerty v. Standard Theatre Co., 109 Mo. 306; Barthold v. Thomas, 210 S.W. 506; Moore v. ......
-
Niedringhaus v. William F. Niedringhaus Inv. Co.
...93 Mich. 97. (12) The purchase of the stock of the St. Louis Coke & Chemical Company was ultra vires, mismanagement and waste. Proctor v. Farrar, 213 S.W. 469; State ex v. Peoples' Bank, 197 Mo. 574; State ex inf. v. Trust Co., 144 Mo. 562; State ex rel. v. Murphy, 130 Mo. 10; Ward v. David......
-
Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
... ... Ward v. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445; Keokuk Packet Co ... v. Davidson, 95 Mo. 467; Brooker v. Thompson Trust ... Co., 254 Mo. 125; Proctor v. Farrar, 213 S.W ... 469. (b) A trustee is not entitled to commissions nor ... compensation for any reimbursements it pays out unless it has ... ...
-
Punch v. Hipolite Co.
...persons who were parties to the abuse of trust, and, therefore, no such request of directors or of the corporation was required. Proctor v. Farrar, 213 S.W. 475; Caldwell v. Eubanks, 20 S.W.2d 979; Hannerty Standard Theatre Co., 109 Mo. 306; Barthold v. Thomas, 210 S.W. 506; Moore v. Ry. Co......