Prouty v. Prouty & Barr Boot & Shoe Co.

Decision Date30 January 1893
Docket Number181
Citation25 A. 1001,155 Pa. 112
PartiesProuty v. Prouty & Barr Boot & Shoe Co. Kimball's Appeal
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued January 18, 1893

Appeal, No. 181, July T., 1892, by Alfred Kimball et al from order of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1890, No 266, distributing fund raised by sheriff's sale of personal property.

Exceptions to report of auditor distributing fund raised by sheriff's sale. The case was referred to Edward W. Magill, Esq., as auditor, who reported in part as follows: "On June 4, 1888, the firm of Austin Fields & Co., then engaged in the shoe-jobbing business in Philadelphia, failed. James A. Fields, a member of the firm, made a proposition to the creditors to pay fifty per cent of their claims in settlement, which proposition was accepted. James A. Fields then purchased from the assignee of Austin Fields & Co., under a decree of court, the assets of his late firm, and, in order to fulfil his agreement with the creditors for the payment of the fifty per cent, entered into an agreement under date of August 3, 1888, with Charles N. Prouty of Spencer, Mass., a member of the firm of Isaac Prouty & Co., by the terms of which Charles N. Prouty agreed to indorse the composition notes given by James A. Fields in liquidation of the debts of Austin Fields & Co., and in consideration of the liability thereby assumed was to receive of James A. Fields his note for $14,000, and was also to receive, as collateral security for said note and against liability by reason of his indorsement of the composition notes, an assignment of the assets purchased by Fields from the assignee of his late firm, and said assets to be left in the hands of Fields as agent for Charles N. Prouty to conduct the boot and shoe business, dispose of the stock, collect the assets of the old firm, pay the indebtedness as it accrued, and pay the composition notes as they fell due.

"After the payment of the said notes Prouty was to receive, from the stock, cash, or assets of the business, the sum of $14,000 and upon receipt of that sum the business and whatever might remain of the assets was to vest in and become the property of Fields, who should become the sole and individual owner thereof.

"In pursuance of this agreement Charles N. Prouty (whose firm was a creditor of Austin Fields & Co.) indorsed the composition notes, received James A. Fields's note for $14,000 in payment of the bonus agreed upon, and the title to the assets of the late firm of Austin Fields & Co. was assigned and transferred to Charles N. Prouty, but the assets themselves remained in the hands of James A. Fields, who acted as agent for Charles N. Prouty in pursuance of their agreement.

"On Dec. 1, 1888, James A. Fields, Everett V. Prouty, and Edward L. Barr agreed to form a corporation under the name of James A. Fields Shoe Co. for the purpose of 'manufacturing and selling boots and shoes and foot-wear.' [It was agreed that James A. Fields should furnish the stock of boots and shoes which he then had on hand, being part of the assets of Austin Fields & Co., at a valuation of $40,000,] for which he should receive stock of the corporation, and that he should also contribute the good will of his business at a valuation of $10,000, for which amount he was also to receive stock of the corporation. Edward L. Barr and Everett V. Prouty each agreed to furnish $10,000 in cash. The title to the boots and shoes then in possession of James A. Fields being in Charles N. Prouty it was agreed that Prouty should release his claim upon the same and accept as collateral security for the debt thereby secured $40,000 worth of the stock of the corporation then about to be formed, and for the purpose of carrying out this arrangement Charles N. Prouty executed a power of attorney dated Nov. 22, 1888, by which James A. Fields was authorized to sell, transfer, and assign to the said James A. Fields Shoe Co., the corporation then about to be formed, all the boots, shoes, stock and fixtures then upon the premises 837 Market street, being the same which had formerly constituted part of the assets of Austin Fields & Co.

"On Jan. 1, 1889, a charter was issued by the state of Pennsylvania incorporating the James A. Fields Shoe Co., and James A. Fields transferred to the corporation the stock of boots and shoes and the good will above mentioned, and received therefor five hundred shares of the stock of the new corporation of the par value of $50,000.

"Edward L. Barr and Everett V. Prouty each paid in $10,000 in cash and received one hundred shares of the stock, the other corporators being all nominal and having no pecuniary interest in the stock of the corporation.

"Of the five hundred shares of stock which James A. Fields received he indorsed four hundred shares in blank to Charles N. Prouty, who held the same as collateral security for the payment of the debt of James A. Fields to him and against liability as indorser of the latter's notes.

"The stock was not transferred to Charles N. Prouty on the books of the company but remained in the name of James A. Fields, who was the owner thereof, subject to the transfer as collateral. Three agreements dated Feb. 9, May 3, and Sept. 3, 1889, were afterward made between Charles N. Prouty and James A. Fields, defining the conditions upon which the stock of the James A. Fields Shoe Co. was held by Charles N. Prouty, and clearly showing that [as between the parties themselves there was no question but that Charles N. Prouty held it (the stock of the company) as collateral security for the payment of James A. Fields's $14,000 note, and for the payment of the notes of composition with the creditors of Austin Fields & Co. which had been indorsed by Charles N. Prouty.]

"The James A. Fields Shoe Co. conducted a general jobbing business in boots and shoes under the management of James A. Fields, Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr, as officers and principal stockholders, until October, 1889, at which time Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr purchased the five hundred shares of stock of James A. Fields in the corporation, and in consideration therefor paid him $10,000 in cash, and assumed all of his liability to Charles N. Prouty on the $14,000 note, four composition notes of $7,000 each, and one note for $2,201.38 given in settlement of the indebtedness of Austin Fields & Co. to Isaac Prouty & Co., making in the aggregate $30,201.38, and Charles N. Prouty gave his consent to the transaction, accepted Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr as his debtors, and released James A. Fields from all liability on the said notes, and accepted from Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr as collateral security for the indebtedness assumed by them four hundred shares of the stock of the corporation. At the time of this transaction two agreements were made, one signed by Charles N. Prouty, dated Oct. 9, 1889, and the other signed by Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr, to which James A. Fields was a party but did not sign, which was dated October, 1889, and it is evident that the two agreements were executed or intended to be executed on the same day, as they both relate to and fully explain the transaction.

"For the purpose of carrying out these agreements, the certificates for four hundred shares of James A. Fields stock which were held by Charles N. Prouty as collateral were transferred to Charles N. Prouty by filling in the blank transfer on the back of the certificate, and, on Oct. 15, 1889, the certificate was surrendered by Charles N. Prouty, who on that day assigned the shares to Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr, whereupon new certificates were issued to Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr for four hundred shares of the stock, and they in turn indorsed them in blank to Charles N. Prouty, as collateral security for the debt which they had assumed. These certificates, indorsed in blank, were in the possession of Charles N. Prouty at the time of the hearing.

"It does not appear that any certificates of stock in the corporation were ever issued to him. The only time his name appears upon the transfer book of the company is in the transfer of the Fields stock to him and from him to Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr on Oct. 15, 1889, as above mentioned.

"After the retirement of James A. Fields from the company the remaining stockholders desired to change the name of the corporation, and, on Nov. 15, 1889, the name was duly changed to the Prouty & Barr Boot & Shoe Co. After this change of name new certificates were issued to Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr for the amount of their holdings in the James A. Fields Co., and they indorsed in blank to Charles N. Prouty four hundred shares of the stock under the new name, which he held as collateral in pursuance of the former agreement. The stock, however, was never transferred to him on the books of the company.

"There still remains due Charles N. Prouty of the old debt of James A. Fields, assumed by Everett V. Prouty and Edward L. Barr, the $14,000 note, which was given in consideration of his indorsement of the composition notes and about $14,300 of the notes given by James A. Fields in settlement with the creditors of Austin Fields & Co., which had been indorsed by Charles N. Prouty & Co.

"[It does not appear that either Charles N. Prouty, or the firm of Isaac Prouty & Co. of which he was a member, had any part in the formation of the corporation of James A. Fields Shoe Co.,] nor that any member of the firm of Isaac Prouty & Co. ever held stock of either the James A. Fields Shoe Co. or the Prouty & Barr Boot & Shoe Co. in their own right or in any way except as collateral security for the debt of James A Fields to Charles N. Prouty, which was afterwards assumed by Everett V. Prouty and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dahlstrom v. Walker
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1920
    ... ... 65; Keyser v ... Shute, 3 Ariz. 336, 29 P. 386; Prouty v ... Prouty, 155 Pa. 112, 25 A. 1001; Forty Acre Spring ... ...
  • Forty-Acre Spring Live Stock Co. v. West Texas B. & T. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 1908
    ...an open question. Keyser v. Shute, 3 Ariz. 336, 29 Pac. 387; Solomon v. Schneider, 56 Neb. 680, 77 N. W. 65; Prouty v. Prouty & Barr Boot & Shoe Co., 155 Pa. 112, 25 Atl. 1001; Stratton v. Allen, 16 N. J. Eq. 229. And there being nothing in the record to the contrary, it must be presumed, i......
  • Appeal of Muehling
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1897
    ...will not be reversed by the Supreme Court except for clear error: Nauman's App., 116 Pa. 505; Hess's Est., 150 Pa. 350; Prouty v. Prouty, etc., Co., 155 Pa. 112; Donaldson's Est., 158 Pa. The machinery was a fixture: Morris's App., 88 Pa. 384; Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa. 271; Roberts v. Dau......
  • Snyder v. Zane
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • November 19, 1900
    ... ... court below: Donaldson's Est., 158 Pa. 292; Prouty v ... Prouty, 155 Pa. 112 ... Before ... ...
  • 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