Staudenmaier v. Johnson, 7325.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 7325.,7325. |
| Citation | 117 F.2d 397 |
| Parties | STAUDENMAIER et al. v. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
C. G. Mathys, of Madison, Wis., for appellants.
G. Arthur Johnson, of Ashland, Wis., for appellee.
Before EVANS and TREANOR, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff-appellee, receiver of the Northern National Bank, brought suit against the defendants to recover an assessment imposed upon the stockholders of the bank by the provisions of Sec. 64 of Title 12 U.S.C.A. The complaint alleged two causes of action. In the first Johnson individually was named defendant, and in the second the named defendants were Johnson and Barney Johnson & Company, a corporation. Judgment was entered for plaintiff in both causes and from this judgment the defendants have appealed.
Two stock transactions are involved, the first relating to a purported sale of 31 shares of stock by Barney Johnson to one of his salesmen, and the second relating to a purported broker's sale of 50 shares by Barney Johnson & Co. to the same salesman. Barney Johnson owned all of the stock of Barney Johnson & Co., except qualifying shares, managed the company as his own enterprise, and carried out the two transactions.
The 31 shares were a part of a large block of stock which Johnson had bought in March of 1930. On June 22, 1931, there was a purported sale by Johnson of the 31 shares to his salesman, Lord. The 50 shares had been owned by a Mr. Aaron who offered the stock to Johnson for $650. About the middle of August, 1932, Johnson was informed by Aaron that if he didn't find a buyer for the stock Aaron was going to sell it at public auction. Johnson testified that he considered it a very serious matter for the stock to be put up at auction for the reason that under the conditions existing at the time such action might result in the closing of both national banks of Ashland, Wisconsin, a result which would seriously affect the interests of Johnson. Johnson testified that he talked to his salesman and asked him if he wanted to own another 50 shares of stock in the Northern National Bank, and that he told his salesman that he, Johnson, would not "buy the bank stock." The deal was closed with Aaron, and Barney Johnson & Co. receipted for the stock. The transfer of the stock to Lord, the salesman of Johnson and Barney Johnson & Co., was entered on the books of the bank as of November 21, 1932.
In respect to the first cause of action the defense was that the defendant, Johnson, had transferred the 31 shares of stock about a year and a half prior to the closing of the bank. In respect to the second cause of action the defense was that the 50 shares of stock never had been owned by the defendant, Barney Johnson & Co. The case of the plaintiff depended entirely upon a showing that the purported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benner v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis
...the weight and credibility of such evidence is for the jury. Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Staudenmaier v. Johnson, 117 F.2d 397; v. Richman, 114 F.2d 343; Clay County Cotton Co. v. Home Life Ins. Co., 113 F.2d 856; Elzig v. Gundwagen, 91 F.2d 434. The defendan......
-
Solomon v. Renstrom
...it even though it may have stood without contradiction. Hawkinson v. Johnston, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 724, 137 A.L.R. 420; Staudenmaier v. Johnson, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 397; Norton v. Jensen, 9 Cir., 49 F. 859; Winans v. New York & E. R. Co., supra; Svenson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 87 F.2d It......
-
Phelps v. Woodward Construction Co.
... ... that amount. The increase was denied. In Staudenmaier vs ... Johnson, 117 F.2d 397, 398, the court stated: ... "there is no rule of law which ... ...
-
Springmann v. Gary State Bank
...Hann v. Venetian Blind Corporation, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 455; American Casualty, etc., v. Windham, 5 Cir., 107 F.2d 88, and Staudenmaier v. Johnson, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 397. It is true that the burden of proving fraud is upon the plaintiff and that it must be proved by clear and convincing evidenc......