Superior Oil & Refining Syndicate v. Handley
Decision Date | 01 February 1921 |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Parties | SUPERIOR OIL & REFINING SYNDICATE, LIMITED, v. HANDLEY, CORPORATION COMMISSIONER. |
In Banc.
Original proceeding in mandamus by the Superior Oil & Refining Syndicate, Limited, organized under the laws of Texas against T. B. Handley, Corporation Commissioner. Peremptory writ denied, and proceeding dismissed.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus to require defendant, T B. Handley, as corporation commissioner of the state of Oregon, to act upon the application of plaintiff, the Superior Oil & Refining Syndicate, organized under the laws of the state of Texas, for a permit to sell in this state what plaintiff denominates capital shares, or certificates in a common-law business syndicate organized for the purpose of making brick and refining crude petroleum and disposing of the products. The corporation commissioner declined to act upon the application, for the reason that the application did not come under his jurisdiction as corporation commissioner but that the business proposed to be done by the plaintiff in the state of Oregon under the application and permit would constitute the doing of a trust business, under chapter VI, title XXXV, Or. L., providing for the incorporation and regulation of trust companies, and consequently under the supervision of the superintendent of banks. Plaintiff submitted with its application a copy of its articles of association, or declaration of trust, and various other documents, which are made a part of the alternative writ.
The authorized capital of this syndicate is shown by the declaration to be $500,000, divided into 500,000 shares of $1 each, $180,000 of which has been subscribed. Article IV of the declaration reads thus:
Articles V and VI define the powers and duties of the trustees. Article VI reads in part as follows:
Section 5, under the title "Trustees' Meeting," provides that:
"All investments shall be made and title to all moneys, choses in action and properties shall be held, and all property managed, controlled, and disposed of absolutely by said trustees and their successors under this declaration of trust, absolutely and free from all limitations, save and except those specifically set out herein, and said trustees shall have power and authority in conducting the business of this syndicate, to do the following, among other things, to wit: * * *"
After which follows a long list of the powers of the trustees. A copy of the certificate proposed to be sold is set forth in section 2 of article VII, and reads thus:
"Capital, $500,000.
Shares, 500,000.
Section 3 of article VII provides that:
"The shareholders in this syndicate shall have no right to the trust property, whether personal, real or mixed, and the ownership of the shares hereunder shall not entitle the owner thereof to any title, possession, custody, or control of the trust property, nor shall they have the right to call for a partition, or a division of the same, or a dissolution of the syndicate, or for an accounting; but shares issued hereunder, evidenced by seal as aforesaid, shall be personal property, giving only the rights to a division of the declared net profits, when and as the same may be distributed by the trustees; and at the termination of the trust hereby created, whether at the expiration of the period fixed for its existence or by voluntary dissolution, or otherwise brought about, to a division of the assets and property of this syndicate; it being fully understood and agreed that absolute control, dominion over and right to dispose of said property, its increase and revenue thereof, so held in trust by said board of trustees, is hereby vested in them and their successors during the period of their trusteeship as hereinbefore stated."
Section 4 of article VII declares in part that:
"The death, insolvency or bankruptcy of any shareholder, the transfer of his or her interest by sale, gift, descent or otherwise, during the continuance of this trust, shall not operate as a dissolution, nor terminate the trust. * * *"
Section 8 of article VII provides:
"All contracts made by persons, corporations, firms or associations with this syndicate, are required to take notice, by reason of the word "Limited" in the name of said syndicate, and by reason of the record of its declaration of trust, and by reason of their contracting with said syndicate name, as is set forth herein, must know and understand that only the funds and property of said syndicate can ever be looked to by creditors for the payment of their claims or debts; and that the trustees of said syndicate, and its officers, managers, agents and servants and shareholders shall never be personlly liable for any debt or obligation, express or implied, or for any tort, or negligence sounding in damages, or any injury whatever, occasioned by said syndicate, or its officers, agents, servants or shareholders, nor shall their property ever be subject to the payment of such claims, and the fact of their contract with said syndicate, in its syndicate name, shall be conclusive evidence that they have agreed to waive and do thereby waive, all rights and claims against the shareholders, officers, servants and agents of said syndicate, for the payment of their debts, and agreed to look only to the funds...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hemphill v. Orloff
...corporations. The plaintiffs have no legal status in this state and are without legal standing in this court.' In Superior Oil Syndicate v. Handley, 99 Or. 146, 195 P. 159, the court accepted at its face te claim of a Massachusetts trust that it was a trust, and held that if it desired to d......
-
Renken v. Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated)
...388, 17 P.2d 1111. Words of common use are to be taken in their natural and obvious meaning and signification. Superior Oil & Refining Syndicate v. Handley, 99 Or. 146, 195 P. 159. Thus, it is seen, that the common ordinary definition of nuisance includes the continued or repeated invasion ......
-
Reilly v. Clyne
... ... APPEAL ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima ... George R. Darnell, Judge. Affirmed ... State v. Evans, 154 Minn. 95, 191 N.W. 425; ... Superior Oil v. Handley, 99 Or. 146, 195 P ... 159; State v. Cosgrove, 36 Idaho 278, 210 ... ...
-
American Trust Co. v. McCallister
... ... 288, 71 A. 894, 895, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 495; Superior ... Oil Syndicate v. Handley, 99 Or. 146, 157, 195 P. 159 ... ...