The Home Lumber Company v. Hopkins
Decision Date | 07 February 1920 |
Docket Number | 22,761 |
Parties | THE HOME LUMBER COMPANY, a Trust Estate, and J. K. STANLAND, W. C. LOWREY, D. C. DONAHUE, as Trustees of the said Trust Estate, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD J. HOPKINS et al., as THE STATE CHARTER BOARD OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, Defendants |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1920.
Original proceeding in mandamus.
Writ denied.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. DECLARATION OF TRUST--Agreement Created a Trust--Not a Partnership. An agreement and declaration of trust provided for the transfer of property to trustees who were given power to issue negotiable certificates to shareholders, carry on a general business, invest and reinvest the funds of the estate at will, pay dividends at their discretion and make proportionate distribution of the assets among the shareholders at the end of twenty years. The shareholders had no authority to instruct or direct the trustees and had no control, either as individuals or in association, except to elect the trustees, and no personal liability could arise against them upon any contract, obligation or action entered into or taken by the trustees, and persons dealing with the trustees could only look to the trust estate for satisfaction. Held, that the agreement created a trust and not a partnership and that the shareholders cannot be held individually liable for the obligations of the trust.
2. SAME--Unincorporated Company--Application for Permission to Sell Stock--Must Conform to Regulations Imposed by Statute on Corporations. The trust, although an unincorporated company is deemed to be a corporation within the meaning of section 6 of article 12 of the state constitution, since the agreement under which the company is organized gives it powers and privileges not possessed by individuals or partnerships, and therefore it can only sell securities and stock within the state by conforming to the regulations imposed by statute upon corporations.
Bennett R. Wheeler, S. M. Brewster, and John L. Hunt, all of Topeka, for the plaintiffs.
Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, and Maurice McNeill, assistant attorney-general, for the defendants.
This proceeding was brought by the plaintiff to compel the state charter board to consider its application for permission to sell its stock and securities within the state, and to find and determine whether the plaintiff had complied with the statutes of the state and is entitled to dispose of securities and stock in Kansas. The plaintiff, an unincorporated association, submitted its agreement or declaration of trust under which it was organized, and its plan of operations, to the charter board, with a request that it be permitted to sell its stock and securities within the state. That tribunal concluded that the agreement created a partnership and was not such an organization as was entitled to sell securities and stock in Kansas, because the agreement created partnership liabilities and the plan of business was inequitable and unfair. The board therefore declined to investigate or consider the solvency of the company, whether its plan of business was otherwise honest and fair to investors, its advertising matter free from deception, and whether or not a reasonable value had been placed upon the assets of the company which was offered in exchange for property and securities. Having determined that each shareholder became liable as a partner and that the business of the sale of its securities and stock was to be conducted upon a plan regarded to be unfair and inequitable, the board deemed it unnecessary to proceed further with the investigation.
The first and principal question presented for determination is whether the company as organized constitutes a partnership. If the shareholders are not partners liable for the debts of the company, and the business contemplated is not contrary to law or public policy, it was the duty of the charter board to investigate and determine the merits of the plaintiff's application. The agreement is a declaration of trust in which parties transfer to trustees certain property interests, and for the purpose of defining the interest of each subscriber in the estate, the trustees were to issue negotiable certificates of shares to the extent of 150,000, each of the value of $ 1, and which they might if they deemed it expedient, increase to 1,000,000 shares. They engaged to use the property and proceeds of the shares sold in a general manufacturing, mercantile, or commercial business, in any and all of its branches; to buy, sell, hypothecate or otherwise deal in bonds and stock, debentures, notes and all forms of obligations of corporations, countries, states, counties, and municipalities or persons. In fact they were authorized to buy, sell and deal in all kinds of property and to carry on all kinds of business not inconsistent with law. It was stipulated that the trustees should not be less than three nor more than five in number, to be elected annually by the shareholders at their meetings, and vacancies in the number of trustees are to be filled by the remaining trustees.
In respect to the functions, obligations and liabilities of the trustees, it is provided:
Other provisions in the agreement are to the effect that the trustees may make, amend, and repeal by-laws, may elect officers and appoint agents and fix their compensation, may pay themselves such compensation as they deem to be reasonable, and they shall not be liable for errors of judgment and shall pay only such dividends as they deem advisable, the amount of such dividends to be left wholly to their discretion. The trust is to continue not longer than twenty years and when ended the trustees are to wind up its affairs, liquidate its assets and distribute the same among the holders of the shares according to the number of shares held by each. It was also provided that the death of a shareholder should not determine the trust nor entitle the legal representatives of such shareholder to an accounting or to take any action in any court or elsewhere against the trustees, but that the regular representatives of the deceased shareholder should succeed to the rights of the decedent. There were further provisions that:
To continue reading
Request your trial