Taylor v. South & N.A.R. Co.

Citation13 F. 152
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
Decision Date01 January 1882
PartiesTAYLOR v. S. & N. ALABAMA R. Co. and another.

BRUCE D. J.

The amended bill assails the title and right of the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company to the two millions capital stock in the South & North Alabama Railroad Company, issued to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, as the successor and assignee of Tate and associates in their contract with the South & North Alabama Railroad Company, for the building and equipment of their road-- the South & North Alabama Railroad.

By the terms of the contract between the South & North Alabama Railroad Company and Sam Tate and associates, of date March 21, 1871, it agreed to 'issue to Sam Tate and associates at 40 cents on the dollar, preferred stock bearing 6 per cent. interest, guarantied payable in kind from date of issue for 12 months after the completion of the road, and thereafter in cash. * * * '

By contract of May 19, 1871, which recites the assignment and transfer to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company of the contract of Sam Tate and associates with the South &amp North Alabama Railroad Company for the consideration therein named, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company 'assumes and binds itself to perform all the obligations imposed by said contracts on said Sam Tate and associates. * * * '

And by contract of same date-- May 19, 1871-- between the two railroad companies named, the South & North Alabama Railroad Company agrees that it will issue to the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company the said $2,000,000 of preferred or interest-bearing stock specified in said contract with Sam Tate and associates, if legally entitled to do so.

These contracts are made exhibits to the amended bill. The proposition of the complainant is that the South & North Alabama Railroad Company had no power under its charter to issue this two million of preferred or interest-bearing stock, and that its issue to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company was a fraud upon the other stockholders of the corporation who held common stock; that the issue was a fraud upon the law, is void, and confers no right upon the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to hold and own said stock.

To this amended bill the respondents, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and the South & North Alabama Railroad Company interpose demurrers, and as they raise, substantially, at least, the same questions, they may be considered together. Many causes of demurrer are assigned, but the questions raised go mainly to the right and title of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to hold the two millions of stock in question, and to the legal right of the South & North Alabama Railroad Company to issue the preferred interest-bearing stock, which it is alleged it contracted and agreed to issue and did issue to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company.

The demurrers also raise the question that even if the issuance of the stock was ultra vires and in excess of the powers granted by the charter of the South & North Alabama Railroad Company, that the contract being now a fully executed one, a court of equity will not at the suit of stockholders disturb the contract which has now become the foundation of the rights of the parties.

The question of the statutes of limitation of six and ten years of the state of Alabama is also raised, and held to bar the relief sought by the complainant in his amended bill, and that the complainant is chargeable with laches, and must be held to have acquiesced in the wrongs of which he now complains, and that his conduct since the issuance of the stock in question works an estoppel upon him in the matters as to which he now seeks relief.

Much argument has been made and many authorities cited to show that the South & North Alabama Railroad Company, under what are claimed to be the very ample powers given in its charter, had the right to issue interest-bearing stock at 40 cents on the dollar, as it did do, and that in so doing it did not act ultra vires of its charter powers, but within them; that such issue of capital stock was but a mode of borrowing money, which it had express power to do, and that the stock was assets of the corporation, and the directory who were authorized to manage the affairs of the said company had the power to dispose of it upon the best terms possible, to the end that the purpose and object of the corporation might be accomplished.

It is also claimed that as it is not alleged that the directory acted unfairly or in bad faith, and that they did not get all the stock was worth at that time, that a court of equity will not disturb the transaction.

It is not deemed necessary to discuss and pass upon these questions, and others which have been pressed upon the court in argument, because the case must turn upon the proposition that this contract for the issuance of the stock in question is an executed contract made in May, 1871, and by the allegations of the bill the stock was actually issued, delivered, and paid for in the year 1871, and since that time, which is more than 10 years prior to the filing of the amended bill, the respondent, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, have held and voted at the meetings of the stockholders of the company this stock, and the complainant, a stockholder in the company, took no steps during all this time, and instituted no proceeding to enjoin his company, or in any way to prevent the evils or obtain redress for the wrongs of which he now complains.

Admitting that the South & North Alabama Railroad Company had no authority under its charter to issue this stock, and that the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company had no authority under its charter to purchase and hold it, still, the charters of the respective companies did not forbid it, still, the charters of the respective companies did not forbid it, and the rule is, that contracts which, though invalid for want of corporate power, yet, if fully executed, they shall remain as the foundation of rights acquired by the transaction. Authorities upon this point are numerous; a few only are cited: Hitchcock v. Galveston, 96 U.S. 351; Nat. Bank v. Graham, 100 U.S. 699; Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 98 U.S. 621; Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U.S. 60; Thomas v. Railroad Co. 101 U.S. 82, in which it is said: 'The executed dealings of corporations must be allowed to stand for and against both parties when the plainest rules of good faith require it.'

I think that reason and authority alike sustain the proposition that a stockholder of a corporation will not be allowed after a reasonable time to disturb and rescind a contract made by this corporation after the same has been fully executed, on the ground that it is ultra vires, and in excess of the corporate powers granted by the charter of the corporation. It is to be observed, however, that the case at bar is not simply a case of the exercise of power in excess of that granted in the charter of the corporation, but it is a case in which the matter complained of is the issue by the corporation of preferred interest-bearing stock, guarantied at 40 cents on the dollar to the amount of $2,000,000, for which only $800,000 was paid.

The proposition of the complainant is that such a transaction is in itself a fraud-- a fraud upon the other stockholders of the company who hold common stock; and that an issue of such stock is not only voidable, but void-- a fraud upon the law. In support of this proposition a number of authorities are cited: Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 395; Sturges v. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246; Fosdick v. Sturges, 1 Biss. 256.

The proposition that any action of a corporation which gives to one class of its stockholders a preference over another class in sharing the earnings of the corporation is a violation of the rights of the holders of non-preferred stock, and is illegal, seems to be sustained both upon reason and authority; but may not such illegality be cured by the assent, express or implied, of the holders of non-preferred stock? Does the case of Sturges v. Stetson, cited supra, which holds such action to be a fraud upon the law, go so far as to hold that it is a fraud which cannot be condoned or cured, and that no conduct on the part of the holders of the non-preferred stock will work an estoppel upon them in making objection to it? What is the true quality, legal, and moral, of the issuance of preferred stock, such as the stock in question, by a railroad corporation with the charter powers of the South & North Alabama Railroad Company? Can it be said that such a transaction involves actual fraud and moral turpitude; that it is in violation of public policy, and fraught with harm to the state? By act of February 26, 1872, the law-making power of Alabama amended the charter of the South & North Alabama Railroad Company, and provided that the 'capital stock of said company should be $3,000,000 or more if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Williams v. Kitchens
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 30 août 1954
    ...204, 110 So. 286; Underhill v. Mobile Fire Department Ins. Co., 67 Ala. 45, 51; Porter v. Smith, 65 Ala. 169, 172; Taylor v. South & N. Ala. R. Co., C.C., 13 F. 152, 159. In the Underhill Case, supra, this court, speaking through Brickell, C. J., 'There is no proper averment that the ignora......
  • Pinkus v. Minneapolis Linen Mills and Others
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 4 juin 1896
    ... ... Id.; Frothingham v. Barney, 6 Hun, 366; ... McCurdy v. Myers, 44 Pa. 535; Taylor v. Earle, 8 ...          Even if ... stock of fixed money value and convertible into ... v ... Green, L. R. 7 C. P. 43; Allen v. Wilson, 28 F ... 677; Taylor v. South & N. Ala. R. Co., 4 Woods, 575, ... 13 F. 152; Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co., 42 F ... 729; ... ...
  • Toledo, St. L. & K.C.R. Co. v. Continental Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 5 juillet 1899
    ...relief. Mor. Priv. Corp. Sec. 462; Banigan v. Bard, 134 U.S. 291, 10 Sup.Ct. 565; Kent v. Mining Co., 78 N.Y. 159-187, et seq.; Taylor v. Railroad Co., 13 F. 152. they should have done, so that evil should not fall upon innocent parties who might buy such shares in reliance upon this clause......
  • In the Matter of Shelton, Case No. 07-81534-JAC-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 11/4/2009), Case No. 07-81534-JAC-7.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 4 novembre 2009
    ...sources of information which were at his command." Batchelor v. Batchelor, 502 So. 2d 751, 754 (Ala. 1987)(quoting Taylor v. South & N.A.R.R., 13 F. 152 (M.D. Ala. 1882)). 13. AAFCOR's fraud allegations rest upon its claims that it relied upon a representation (the debtor's March, 2006 fina......
  • 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