Wing v. Dillingham
Decision Date | 05 February 1917 |
Docket Number | 2808. |
Citation | 239 F. 54 |
Parties | WING v. DILLINGHAM et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
This is a suit in equity by the Houston Oil Company, a Texas corporation, and its receiver, Charles Dillingham, to recover 12 sections of land from the defendant, Wilson D. Wing. The defendant was a director and stockholder in the corporation plaintiff. The corporation, at and prior to said time, was the owner of more than 850,000 acres of timbered lands situated in different counties in the eastern and southeastern parts of Texas. At a meeting of the directors of said company, held in the city of New York in November, 1903 the board of directors, consisting of nine members, six of whom were lawyers, the company being in great financial distress, urged their codirector, the defendant herein, to advance for its account the money necessary to pay the balance due Wallis, Landes & Co. upon a purchase of 12 sections of land and the timber thereon. There was at said time a balance of $5,672.45 due upon said timber contract said note being due November 14, 1903, and being the last of a series of five notes. On October 27, 1903, having theretofore purchased the timber, Wallis, Landes & Co. purchased from the state of Texas said 12 sections of land, paying $2 per acre therefor, receiving patents thereto in the month of November of the same year. January 14, 1901, Wallis, Landes & Company conveyed said lands and the pine timber growing thereon to the Beaumont Lumber Company. Under date of January 15, 1904, the Beaumont Lumber Company, at the instance of the Houston Oil Company, conveyed said lands and timber to defendant, Wilson D. Wing.
The defendant having agreed to advance the money necessary to pay off the debt due Wallis, Landes & Company, the Houston Oil Company, at a meeting of its directors in the city of New York, on the 26th day of January, 1904, adopted the following resolution; Wilson D. Wing not voting:
'Resolved, that the president of this company be and he is hereby authorized on behalf of this company to execute contract with Mr. Wilson D. Wing, in re Wallis, Landes & Co. lands, form of which contract is now before this board.'
Acting under said resolution, the Houston Oil Company and Wilson D. Wing, the defendant herein, on January 27, 1904, executed the following contract:
On the following day the Maryland Trust Company filed its bill of complaint against the Houston Oil Company and the Kirby Lumber Company with the clerk of this court at Houston, and receivers of said company were appointed on February 1st thereafter. The Oil Company and its receiver not being able to repay the said Wing the money so advanced within the time named in said contract, and the said defendant not consenting to extend the time for such payment, this suit, in the nature of a supplemental and ancillary bill, was filed March 20 1906, a little less than 20 months from the expiration of said contract. The plaintiff tenders all sums of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Irving Trust Co. v. Deutsch
...is likewise liable to account for the profit so made. See Jackson v. Smith, 254 U. S. 586, 41 S. Ct. 200, 65 L. Ed. 418; Wing v. Dillingham, 239 F. 54 (C. C. A. 5); Trice v. Comstock, 121 F. 620, 61 L. R. A. 176 (C. C. A. 8); Wendt v. Fischer, 243 N. Y. 439, 154 N. E. 303; Blake v. Buffalo ......
-
Perlman v. Feldmann
...itself to acquire the stock. Judge Swan speaking for the court pointed out that "The defendants' argument, contrary to Wing v. Dillingham 5 Cir., 239 F. 54, that the equitable rule that fiduciaries should not be permitted to assume a position in which their individual interests might be in ......
-
287 F. 927 (W.D.N.Y. 1923)
...founded on the soundest morality, and which has received the clearest recognition in this court and in others.' In Wing v. Dillingham, 239 F. 54, 152 C.C.A. 104, Circuit Court of Appeals said: 'It has never been held that a director can buy anything of value from the corporation he serves, ......