Runkle v. Burrage
Decision Date | 20 May 1909 |
Citation | 202 Mass. 89,88 N.E. 573 |
Parties | RUNKLE v. BURRAGE et al. (two cases). |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Chas.
F. Choate, Jr., and Wm. R. Barbour, for plaintiff.
Walter I. Badger and Wm. Harold Hitchcock, for defendants Burrage.
Homer Albers, for defendant Lawson.
These are two suits in equity brought against Albert C. Burrage his brother Charles D. Burrage and Thomas W. Lawson, for an accounting, and to recover moneys subscribed by the plaintiff and others towards an enterprise in the sale or management of mining properties alleged to have been undertaken by the defendants. The first suit was brought to recover money subscribed by the plaintiff personally, and the second to recover money subscribed by others who have assigned their interests to the plaintiff. The subscriptions represented in the two suits amount in the aggregate to $406,125, which sum with interest from May 10, 1899, the plaintiff seeks to recover. The subscriptions were made through one Dickey who was a close and intimate friend of A. C. Burrage both in social and business relations. A part of the master's finding is as follows:
At the time of this interview Burrage expected that the Santa Rita mine would be included with the Arizona properties when the enterprise was established, but Dickey did not mention the Santa Rita mine to any of his subscribers. The purchase of the Santa Rita mine was not concluded until June, 1899. It was never included with the Sisson properties and still remains an independent company.
Some of the testimony of the witnesses as to the representations on which the subscriptions were made is as follows: The plaintiff testified that Dickey told him: Dickey testified: Pritchard, a subscriber, testified of Dickey's statement: 'The substance of it was that Mr. Dickey, through his friend Mr. Burrage, had an opportunity to underwrite a venture which was to develop mining properties in Arizona and New Mexico, and if the amount was larger than he cared to put in himself, he was at liberty to take subscriptions from some of his intimate friends, and on those representations, that the properties were to have the personal oversight of Mr. Burrage and his associates, I ventured $5,000.' Dickey, referring to the subscribers whom he personally saw, testified as follows: This testimony fairly represents the only arrangements under which the several sums were subscribed. They were paid over to Dickey and Neither of the defendants was a subscriber, but A. C. Burrage On April 28, 1899, $335,000 of this money was lent to Sisson by Charles D. Burrage as treasurer of the syndicate, and a conveyance of Sisson's mining properties was taken as collateral security, with an option to purchase them at a stated price and to treat the money lent as the first payment. Afterwards the purchase was consummated, and '$206,000 more was paid Sisson in July, 1899, of which $165,000 was the balance of the subscriptions made through Dickey and $41,000 was advanced by A. C. Burrage. Burrage received no note or other evidence of indebtedness, either from the Arimex syndicate or the Arimex Company, for this advance, or for more than $30,000 which he expended in the purchase of the Angang mine that was joined with the Sisson properties in the same enterprise, and was afterwards controlled by the Arimex syndicate, and later by the Arimex Company. Substantially all sums borrowed since the organization of the Arimex Company in August, 1899, have been borrowed from the defendant, A. C. Burrage. On September 14, 1904, he had lent the company $269,157, which was represented by notes of the company. The amount borrowed from him since that time were not disclosed by the evidence.
On May 10, 1899, receipts for the several sums which had been contributed by Dickey's friends, indorsed by Dickey, were sent to them in the following form:
On August 4, 1899, the Angang Copper Company, the Oxide Copper Company and the Arimex Consolidated Copper Company were organized under the laws of New Jersey. The capitalization of the first of these corporations was $1,000,000, and that of the second and third was $5,000,000 each. The Table Mining...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exch. Realty Co. v. Bines
...the Duncan Company did not constitute a representation of such materiality as would warrant a rescission of the contract. Runkle v. Burrage, 202 Mass. 89, 88 N.E. 573;Zintz v. Golub, 260 Mass. 178, 156 N.E. 903;Vye v. McKenney, 266 Mass. 573, 165 N.E. 665;Province Securities Corp. v. Maryla......
-
Glassman v. Barron
...be found from their individual statements. It was said by Chief Justice Knowlton, as to one of the defendants, in Runkle v. Burrage, 202 Mass. 89, at page 98, 88 N. E. 573, 577: ‘In a sense he was acting as their agent and trustee in matters in which he and they had a common interest. They ......
-
Senneff v. Healy
... ... expressed in Jackson v. Hooper, 76 N.J.Eq. 185 (74 ... A. 130); Berry v. Colborn, 65 W.Va. 493 (64 S.E ... 636, 17 Ann. Cas. 1018); Runkle v. Burrage et al., ... 202 Mass. 89 (88 N.E. 573 at 577); Botsford v. Van ... Riper (Nev.) 110 P. 705 ... What, ... then, are ... ...
-
Coken Co., Inc. v. Department of Public Works
...the DPW rules which induced the DPW to rescind the contract it reasonably believed to be illegal. It relies upon Runkle v. Burrage, 202 Mass. 89, 99, 88 N.E. 573, 577 (1909) ("In the absence of fraud, nothing less than conduct that amounts to an abrogation of the contract, or that goes to t......