Stone v. Eacho, No. 4894.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPARKER, and DOBIE, Circuit , and WARING
Citation127 F.2d 284
PartiesSTONE et al. v. EACHO. In re TIP TOP TAILORS, Inc.
Docket NumberNo. 4894.
Decision Date13 April 1942

127 F.2d 284 (1942)

STONE et al.
v.
EACHO.
In re TIP TOP TAILORS, Inc.

No. 4894.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 13, 1942.


127 F.2d 285

Bernard Hellring, of Newark, N. J., and Reuben Golin, of New York City (Bilder, Bilder & Kaufman and Albert Freeman, all of Newark, N. J., Hahn & Golin, of New York City, and Steingold & Steingold, of

127 F.2d 286
Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellants

R. Hugh Rudd, of Richmond, Va., for appellee.

Before PARKER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and WARING, District Judge.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal in the bankruptcy proceedings of the Tip Top Tailors, a Virginia corporation, from an order subordinating a claim of the trustee in bankruptcy of the Tip Top Tailors, a Delaware corporation, to the claims of other creditors of the Virginia corporation and refusing a motion to consolidate the bankruptcy proceedings of the Virginia corporation with those of the Delaware corporation pending in the District of New Jersey.

The Tip Top Tailors was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on January 23, 1939. Its principal place of business was in Newark, N. J., and it operated nine retail stores in various cities of the United States, one of these being located at Richmond, Va. On July 12, 1939 it secured a corporate charter from the State of Virginia for a corporation of the same name as that under which it was operating and caused three shares of stock, of the par value of $1 each, to be issued to its nominees to be held by them for its use and benefit. The officers of the two corporations were the same and no separate corporate activity of any sort on the part of the Virginia corporation is shown to have taken place. No money was paid into its treasury, no contracts were executed by it, no salaries were paid by it, unless the payment of wages to employees of the Richmond store from cash on hand be so regarded, and the only records kept for it were records kept in the office of the Delaware corporation at Newark, N. J., by an employee of that corporation. These records consisted of nothing more than transcriptions from the books of the Delaware corporation made by employees of that corporation at infrequent intervals.

Except for these book entries, and except for the fact that the Virginia charter was obtained, the Delaware corporation dealt with its Richmond, Va., store precisely in the same way as it dealt with the other stores that it was operating, as to which there was no pretense of separate incorporation. The manner of dealing with the Richmond store is thus described in the report of the special master approved by the court below, viz.:

"Sample bolts of goods and styles of suits were furnished the Richmond store by the parent corporation. A customer in Richmond, after selecting the style of suit and kind of cloth, was measured and the order was then sent from Richmond to Newark. In Newark the parent corporation then had the suit made up according to order, and shipped it back to the Richmond store, which made delivery to the customer and collected the price. At the end of each day the Richmond store would make out a complete and detailed report and send it by mail to Newark. Out of cash collected by the Richmond store salaries of the local store personnel were paid and petty items taken care of, and the balance of the money was deposited in a Richmond bank. This bank then forwarded these funds to the National City Bank of New York to the credit of the account of the Delaware corporation.

"In furnishing the Richmond store with cloth and their processing the suits for the local customers, the parent corporation made no profit. It furnished materials and labor at cost and debited the Richmond store with these amounts.

"Out of the cash collected in Richmond, the local store did not have authority to pay any bills over $10.00, with the exception of salaries. These petty cash items paid direct at Richmond in the course of a year's time would amount to not over $1,000.00. All other expenses incident to the operation and maintenance of the Richmond store were paid directly by the Delaware corporation by its own check, and then debited on its books to the Richmond Store. In this way the parent corporation paid direct all expenses incident to the operation of the Richmond store, such as rent, insurance, stationery and supplies, telephone bills, delivery charges, express charges, taxes, light, heat, and power bills, unemployment insurance, payroll, etc.

"The parent corporation operated the Richmond store on the same basis as it did the other eight stores and charged the Richmond store with its proportionate share of the main office expense. The said expense being allotted to each of the stores in the proportion that the sales of the respective stores bore to the total sales. The only corporate record pertaining to the Virginia corporation consisted of a general ledger and a general journal. Entries in

127 F.2d 287
these books were only made once a year when certain items were taken off the records of the parent corporation and entered for the whole year on the ledger and journal of the Virginia corporation. All books and records of both corporations, during the entire term of the operation of the Richmond store, were kept under the supervision and control of one Henry Wegener, regular bookkeeper for the Delaware corporation, at its Newark offices acting under the instructions of the comptroller of the Delaware corporation."

To this should be added the fact that contracts with dealers in hats, shirts, etc., were made by the Delaware corporation authorizing such dealers to operate in the Richmond store, just as they operated in the other stores of the corporation, and that the Richmond store was charged and credited with respect to transactions arising out of these contracts, just as were the other stores.

With the exception of the three shares of the par value of $1 each, nothing was subscribed to the capital stock of the Virginia corporation; and, so far as the record shows, it owned no property of any sort. Fixtures, it is true, were placed in the Richmond store by the Delaware corporation and $900 was furnished it to take care of initial expenses; but these were charged to the Virginia corporation on the books of the Delaware corporation just as similar items were charged to its other stores and just as the goods furnished to the Richmond store were charged. By the time of the closing of the store, the excess of these charges over credits amounted to $39,069.67. Other debts of the Richmond store amounted to only about $12,000, included in which was a claim for rent, subject to reduction or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 practice notes
  • In re Derivium Capital, LLC, Civil Action No. 05-15042-JW
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
    • 22 Diciembre 2006
    ...85 L.Ed. 1293 (1941) (affirming the lower court's order consolidating the estate of debtor with that of another entity); Stone v. Eacho, 127 F.2d 284 (4th Cir.1942), In re Bonham, 226 B.R. 56, 75 (Bankr.D.Alaska 1998) (consolidating the estate of a non-debtor with that of the debtor nunc pr......
  • In Re Cyberco Holdings Inc., No. HG 04-14905
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 2 Julio 2010
    ...Bankruptcy Act, § 67(d) 11 U.S.C.A. § 107(d). Contra, Maule Industries Inc. v. Gerstel, 232 F.2d 294 (5th Cir.1956). In Stone v. Eacho, 127 F.2d 284 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942), where the facts closely resembled those of the instant case, the cou......
  • DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., No. 75-1653
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 13 Mayo 1976
    ...1098, 1106, modified factually 490 F.2d 916; Sell v. United States (10th Cir. 1964), 336 F.2d 467, 472; Stone v. Eacho (4th Cir. 1942), 127 F.2d 284, 288-9, cert. denied, 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942); Jennings v. Automobile Sales Co. (1917), 107 S.C. 514, 515, 93 S.E. 188.......
  • Reed v. Nathan, Case No. 15-cv-14462
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 6 Octubre 2016
    ...pierced only where the [r]eferee finds that the subsidiary corporations were organized to defraud or hinder creditors. In Stone v. Eacho, 127 F.2d 284 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942), where the facts closely resembled those of the instant case, the co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
67 cases
  • DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., No. 75-1653
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 13 Mayo 1976
    ...1098, 1106, modified factually 490 F.2d 916; Sell v. United States (10th Cir. 1964), 336 F.2d 467, 472; Stone v. Eacho (4th Cir. 1942), 127 F.2d 284, 288-9, cert. denied, 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942); Jennings v. Automobile Sales Co. (1917), 107 S.C. 514, 515, 93 S.E. 188.......
  • In re Derivium Capital, LLC, Civil Action No. 05-15042-JW
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
    • 22 Diciembre 2006
    ...85 L.Ed. 1293 (1941) (affirming the lower court's order consolidating the estate of debtor with that of another entity); Stone v. Eacho, 127 F.2d 284 (4th Cir.1942), In re Bonham, 226 B.R. 56, 75 (Bankr.D.Alaska 1998) (consolidating the estate of a non-debtor with that of the debtor nunc pr......
  • In Re Cyberco Holdings Inc., No. HG 04-14905
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 2 Julio 2010
    ...Bankruptcy Act, § 67(d) 11 U.S.C.A. § 107(d). Contra, Maule Industries Inc. v. Gerstel, 232 F.2d 294 (5th Cir.1956). In Stone v. Eacho, 127 F.2d 284 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942), where the facts closely resembled those of the instant case, the cou......
  • Reed v. Nathan, Case No. 15-cv-14462
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 6 Octubre 2016
    ...pierced only where the [r]eferee finds that the subsidiary corporations were organized to defraud or hinder creditors. In Stone v. Eacho, 127 F.2d 284 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 317 U.S. 635, 63 S.Ct. 54, 87 L.Ed. 512 (1942), where the facts closely resembled those of the instant case, the co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Securitisation 2022
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 2 Febrero 2022
    ...formal observance of corporate formalities. An additional factor, articulated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Stone v Eacho, 127 F2d 284, 288 (4th Cir 1942), has also been cited by a number of cases, namely whether "by... ignoring the separate corporate entity of the [subsidiaries......
  • Securitisation 2022
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 2 Febrero 2022
    ...formal observance of corporate formalities. An additional factor, articulated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Stone v Eacho, 127 F2d 284, 288 (4th Cir 1942), has also been cited by a number of cases, namely whether "by... ignoring the separate corporate entity of the [subsidiaries......
1 books & journal articles
  • Substantive Consolidation of Bankruptcy Proceedings in China: A Critical Examination.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 Nbr. 3, September 2021
    • 22 Septiembre 2021
    ...(last visited Sept. 12, 2020). (99) See, e.g., Stone v. Eacho (In re Tip Top Tailors, Inc.), 127 F.2d 284, 288-9 (4th Cir. 1942). The well-known factor-lists include the seven-factor list in In re Vecco Contr. Indus., 4 B.R. 407, 410 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1980); the five-factor list proposed in ......

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