William Wall v. Parrot Silver Copper Company
| Decision Date | 04 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 271,271 |
| Citation | 37 S.Ct. 609,244 U.S. 407,61 L.Ed. 1229 |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. WALL and Etta Foss, Executrix, etc., Appts. v. PARROT SILVER & COPPER COMPANY and Anaconda Copper Mining Company |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Francis P. Garland and Asa P. French for appellants.
Messrs. L. O. Evans and John A. Garver for appellees.
The appellants, as owners of 1,210 of the 229,850 shares of the capital stock of the Parrot Silver & Copper Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Montana, filed their bill in the United States district court for the district of Montana, seeking to avoid an executed sale of all the property and assets of that company, made on May 31, 1910, to the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, the consideration being a stipulated number of shares of the vendee company.
The claim of the appellants is that in 1899 certain persons acquired control of a majority of the shares of the capital stock of the Parrot Company with the fraudulent purpose of so managing its affairs as to deplete and depreciate its assets 'and then to acquire them' for less than their real value, thereby depriving the minority stockholders of 'the just and fair value of their right and interest' as shareholders, or 'of an appraisal of the value of their stock on any adequate basis of value.'
It is further claimed that this fraudulent scheme found consummation in the sale to the Anaconda Company, which was made under authority of §§ 4409-4412 of the Revised Codes of Montana.
Sections 4409 provides that a sale may be made of all the assets of any mining corporation when at least two thirds of the whole number of shares of the capital stock outstanding shall vote in favor of making such a sale at a meeting called and notified as provided in the section. Such a sale of the 'whole property of the corporation' works a dissolution of the corporation under § 4410, and its affairs must be wound up. Section 4411 provides that any stockholder who shall not have voted for or authorized such sale may, within twenty days from the date of the stockholders' meeting authorizing it, give written notice that he does not assent thereto, and demand payment of the value of his stock, and ten days after the service of such notice he must, or the corporation may, apply to a designated court and have the value of the stock fixed and appraised. Upon such application the court shall appoint three appraisers who shall take evidence in relation to and shall find the value of the stock of such dissenting stockholder 'at the time of his dissent.' To any stockholder not satisfied with the award of the appraisers the next section, 4412, allows an appeal to the district court, where the value of the stock shall be reassessed by a jury in the same manner as in 'appeals from the assessments of commissioners in condemnation proceedings provided by law.' The judgment on such an award must be entered against both the vendor and the vendee corporation, and by the statute it is made a lien superior to the rights of the vendee upon all of the real property sold.
After the sale to the Anaconda Company complained of, the appellants served a notice of dissent on the Parrot corporation and commenced a statutory preceeding for the appraisal of their stock, which has not been brought on for hearing, but is still pending.
The claim upon which the appellants come into this court by direct appeal is that the statutes of Montana referred to, are unconstitutional because they provide for a sale of all the property of the corporation upon a favorable vote of less than all (not less than two thirds) of the shares of the capital stock of the corporation, and that dissenting stockholders must accept an award of the value of their stock, made as of the date of sale. Such an award in this case, it is claimed, would be based upon a valuation of the assets of the company after they had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frost v. Corporation Commission State Oklahoma
...Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Atty. General, 124 U. S. 581, 598, 599, 8 S. Ct. 631, 31 L. Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U. S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S. Ct. 609, 61 L. Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Co., 260 U. S. 469, 472, 473, 43 S. Ct. 178, 67 L. Ed. 351;......
-
Gray v. Commodity Credit Corporation
...96 Am.Dec. 350, as quoted in Daniels v. Tearney, 1881, 102 U.S. 415, 421, 26 L.Ed. 187; and see, Wall v. Parrott Silver & Copper Co., 1917, 244 U.S. 407, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm., 1929, 278 U.S. 300, 307, 308, 49 S.Ct. 150, 73 L.Ed. 390; White ......
-
Clark v. Security Benefit Assn., 35276.
...106; Humbird v. Avery, 195 U.S. 480, 25 Sup. Ct. 123; Leonard v. Vicksburg Ry. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 25 Sup. Ct. 750; Wall v. Parrott Silver Co., 244 U.S. 407, 37 Sup. Ct. 681; Pierce Oil Co. v. Phoenix Ref. Co., 259 U.S. 125, 42 Sup. Ct. 440; Early v. Maccabees, 48 S.W. (2d) 890; Rechow v. Ba......
-
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis, etc., Co., v. George C. Prendergast Const. Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. We think that the p......