Williams v. Erie Mountain Consol. Min. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtDUNBAR, J.
PartiesWILLIAMS et al. v. ERIE MOUNTAIN CONSOL. MINING CO. et al.
Decision Date19 October 1907

91 P. 1091

47 Wash. 360

WILLIAMS et al.
v.
ERIE MOUNTAIN CONSOL.
MINING CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 19, 1907


Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L. Kennan, Judge.

Action by S. M. Williams and others against the Erie Mountain Consolidated Mining Company, George Ilse, and others. From the judgment, defendant Ilse appeals. Affirmed. [91 P. 1092]

Peacock & Ludden, for appellant.

Willis H. Merriam and Swanson & Ripley, for respondents.

DUNBAR, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs, alleging: That they at one time were stockholders in the Erie Mountain Consolidated Mining Company; that afterwards they had their stock transferred into the Erie Consolidated Gold Mining Company, in consideration of a certain agreement between the two companies by which the property of the first company was to be transfered to the second company; that the complete transfer was not consummated by reason of a fraudulent conspiracy between the officers of said company, to wit, G. S. Allison, Rufus Merriam, Willis Merriam, and the defendant George Ilse, to cheat and defraud the second company, the Erie Consolidated Gold Mining [47 Wash. 361] Company, in pursuance of which fraudulent conspiracy the property of the corporation was deeded by the first company, the Erie Mountain Consolidated Mining Company, to the defendant Ilse. And other allegations were made in regard to peculations of the defendants. The complaint prays for an appointment of a receiver, the judgment declaring the deed to the property null and void, and that the defendant Ilse be compelled to reconvey to the second company, and for an accounting by Rufus Merriam and Willis Merriam. A demurrer was interposed to this complaint. The important proposition raised in the demurrer, and the only one which merits discussion here, is that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue. The demurrer was overruled by the court, the defendants Merriam and Allison interposed a cross-complaint, and judgment was obtained against Ilse, to the effect that upon the return of the money that he advanced for the benefit of the property he should redeed the same to the Erie Consolidated Gold Mining Company. The cross-complaint, in substance, alleged that the property was deeded to Ilse with the intention that it should be held in trust for the benefit of the corporation for certain reasons alleged in the complaint which it is not necessary to set forth here, and that it was made without other consideration, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Red Bud Realty Co. v. South, (No. 335.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 1, 1922
    ...Works, 188 Mass. 515, 74 N. E. 680; Virginia, etc., Co. v. Fisher, 104 Va. 121, 51 S. E. 198; Williams v. Erie Mt. Consol. Mining Co., 47 Wash. 360, 91 Pac. 1091; Chicago Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320, 30 N. E. 667, 33 Am. St. Rep. 315; Rothwell v. Robinson, 39 Minn. 1, 38 N. W. 772, 12 A......
  • In re F5 Networks, Inc., No. 81817-7.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 21, 2009
    ...not ask the corporation to pursue these claims first, commonly known as making a demand. See Williams v. Erie Mountain Consol. Min. Co., 47 Wash. 360, 362, 91 P. 1091 (1907) (citing 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law 976 (2d ¶ 3 The plaintiffs are three individual shareholders and two shareholding l......
  • Bergman Clay Mfg. Co. v. Bergman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 21, 1913
    ...578, 112 P. 647, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 859; Wright v. Tacoma Gas & Elec. Co., 53 Wash. 262, 101 P. 865; Williams v. Erie Mt. Consol. Min. Co., 47 Wash. 360, 91 P. 1091; Elliott v. Puget Sound W. P. Co., 52 Wash. 637, 101 P. 228. 4. A court of equity will enjoin the trustees from selling the prop......
3 cases
  • Red Bud Realty Co. v. South, (No. 335.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 1, 1922
    ...Works, 188 Mass. 515, 74 N. E. 680; Virginia, etc., Co. v. Fisher, 104 Va. 121, 51 S. E. 198; Williams v. Erie Mt. Consol. Mining Co., 47 Wash. 360, 91 Pac. 1091; Chicago Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 Ill. 320, 30 N. E. 667, 33 Am. St. Rep. 315; Rothwell v. Robinson, 39 Minn. 1, 38 N. W. 772, 12 A......
  • In re F5 Networks, Inc., No. 81817-7.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 21, 2009
    ...not ask the corporation to pursue these claims first, commonly known as making a demand. See Williams v. Erie Mountain Consol. Min. Co., 47 Wash. 360, 362, 91 P. 1091 (1907) (citing 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law 976 (2d ¶ 3 The plaintiffs are three individual shareholders and two shareholding l......
  • Bergman Clay Mfg. Co. v. Bergman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 21, 1913
    ...578, 112 P. 647, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 859; Wright v. Tacoma Gas & Elec. Co., 53 Wash. 262, 101 P. 865; Williams v. Erie Mt. Consol. Min. Co., 47 Wash. 360, 91 P. 1091; Elliott v. Puget Sound W. P. Co., 52 Wash. 637, 101 P. 228. 4. A court of equity will enjoin the trustees from selling the prop......

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