Trent Import Co. v. Wheelwright
| Decision Date | 12 June 1912 |
| Citation | 84 A. 543,118 Md. 249 |
| Parties | TRENT IMPORT CO. v. WHEELWRIGHT. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; James P. Gorter Judge.
Action by the Trent Import Company against Jere H. Wheelwright. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, BURKE, PATTISON URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Clarence A. Tucker and Joseph N. Ulman, both of Baltimore, for appellant.
Charles Markell and Edgar H. Gans, both of Baltimore, for appellee.
This is an action by a New York corporation to recover from the defendant upon his subscription for certain shares of its capital stock, and the defense is that the plaintiff is unable to perform its part of the contract without violating the law under which it was created.
It is alleged in the declaration that Gustav Eggena, being the sole agent for the sale and delivery in the United States of the ales, stouts, and other products of the establishment of Samuel Allsopp & Sons, Limited, of England, proposed to procure a new contract for the agency, and have it made assignable to a corporation to be organized under the laws of New York. It is averted that $150,000 of the preferred stock of the projected corporation was offered for subscription at its par value of $100 per share, and the defendant subscribed for 150 shares under an undated agreement between Eggena and the defendant and other subscribers, providing, so far as it need be stated, that the company be organized with an authorized capital of $175,000 of 7 per cent. cumulative nonvoting preferred stock, and $175,000 of common stock; that the proceeds of the preferred stock offered for sale should be paid over to the corporation for the purposes of its business; that each of the subscribers should receive, in addition to the preferred stock covered by his subscription 50 per cent. of the amount in common stock; that payments for the stock should be made to the Trust Company of America in New York City, and upon the organization of the corporation certificates for its preferred and common stock should be issued to the Trust Company for delivery to the respective subscribers upon the completion of their payments under the terms of the agreement; that when the corporation should be formed and the further agency obtained, and in the event that a minimum of $75,000 of the preferred stock was subscribed for, Eggena should transfer the agency to the corporation under an agreement between the company and himself for its purchase. The subscriptions actually obtained equaled, but did not exceed, the minimum amount of $75,000, fixed by the agreement.
The declaration then sets forth a later agreement between the same parties, dated October 1, 1907, which recited that Eggena had then procured a contract from Allsopp & Sons, Limited, to constitute the proposed corporation the exclusive agent in the United States for the ales, stouts, and other products referred to, and had performed all the conditions for the organization of the corporation prescribed by the prior agreement, and provided that the subscribers should pay to the Trust Company of America 20 per cent. of the amount of their subscriptions on or before October 31, 1907, the remaining amounts to be paid as previously stipulated. It is alleged that Eggena thereupon organized the corporation as the Trent Import Company, the plaintiff in this suit, and that on October 25, 1907, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement, in which the other subscribers and Eggena also joined, further modifying the agreement of subscription. The last-dated agreement stated that the Trent Import Company had organized in accordance with the original agreement as later modified, that Eggena vested in the company the agency contract in question, and had performed all of his other agreements in the premises, except the delivery to the Trust Company of the preferred and common stock which that company was to deliver to the subscribers, and that the Trent Import Company had ratified and accepted all of the provisions of the two preceding agreements, and had authorized the issuance of its capital stock accordingly. It then provided that each of the subscribers should on or before October 31, 1907, pay to the Trent Import Company, instead of the Trust Company, 20 per cent. of their subscriptions, and that, upon such payment, the plaintiff corporation should issue to each subscriber making the payment preferred stock of the company at par in the amount paid and 50 per cent. of the amount in common stock, and that, upon payment of the succeeding calls by the directors, corresponding amounts of preferred and common stock should be issued. The declaration concludes with the allegation that the plaintiff had performed all the conditions on its part provided in the agreement as finally modified, but the defendant failed and refused to make the payments when due. There were further counts charging separately the failure and refusal of the defendant to pay the second and later calls, he having in fact duly made the first 20 per cent. payment of $3,000 on his subscription.
These allegations were met by a plea which, avers among other things, that the plaintiff corporation was formed subject to the Stock Corporation Law of New York, by which it is provided, in section 42, that: The plea then proceeds to charge that the plaintiff corporation was promoted and organized solely by Gustav Eggena and other persons associated with and acting for him and under his control, and that, at the times of issuing or authorizing the issue of stock as mentioned in the declaration, the directors of the corporation were persons acting in the interest and under the control of Eggena, and that the plaintiff corporation has never had under its ownership or control, so as to be able to issue or cause to be issued to the defendant, in performance of the subscription contract, any shares of its common stock for which the par value has at any time been paid in money or in labor done, or property received, either of an actual value equal to not less than par, or at a valuation not less than par made in good faith by the directors of the corporation, but that all the common stock proposed to be issued to the defendant under the contract has been, or will be attempted to be, issued either for no consideration whatever or else for alleged labor or property at a valuation by the corporation or its directors not fixed in good faith, but known by the corporation and its directors to be excessive and beyond any fair valuation of such labor or property.
A demurrer to the plea having been overruled, the plaintiff filed a replication, alleging that all the shares of common stock which the defendant was to receive under the contract upon payment for the preferred stock mentioned in the subscription were a part of the common stock which had been issued by the plaintiff corporation for property or services or both at a valuation fixed in good faith by the directors of the plaintiff equal to the full par value of the stock. The pleadings thus led to the issue whether the corporation had received for the common stock, which it was to deliver under the agreement to the defendant, property or services really worth the par value of the stock or so valued by the directors in good faith. This was made the determinative issue of fact in the case upon the theory, which the court adopted and upon which it overruled the demurrer to the plea, that unless the common stock intended for the defendant represents, actually or in the bona fide determination of the directors, value received by the corporation equal to the par value of the stock, the contract of subscription is illegal and unenforceable.
In the course of the trial it was proved that the whole of the common stock of the company, and 1,000 shares of its preferred stock, had been issued to Eggena by the corporation as the purchase price of the agency mentioned in the subscription agreement. This was in pursuance of a contract in writing between the corporation and Eggena, dated October 25, 1907, which provided that the stock thus issued should be deemed full paid and nonassessable. There was a provision however, that 750 shares of the preferred stock should be retransferred by Eggena to the company as its absolute property for the purpose of raising money for working capital. It was thus established as a fact that the common stock which the company agreed on October 25, 1907, to issue to the defendant was a part of that which it had already agreed to issue to Eggena as full-paid stock in consideration of the transfer of the Allsopp agency. The directors, with the exception of one who was returned non est, were summoned as witnesses in the case, and each one testified in effect that he had no knowledge of the value of the agency contract purchased by the company, and that he made no investigation to ascertain its value. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial