Alexander v. . Donohoe

38 N.E. 263, 143 N.Y. 203, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 158, 98 Sickels 203, 1894 N.Y. LEXIS 937
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 9, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 38 N.E. 263 (Alexander v. . Donohoe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. . Donohoe, 38 N.E. 263, 143 N.Y. 203, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 158, 98 Sickels 203, 1894 N.Y. LEXIS 937 (N.Y. 1894).

Opinion

Earl, J.

The complaint in this action covers 158 pages of the printed record, besides the judgment roll in the action of Donohoe against the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of California and The Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, which is annexed to the complaint and forms part thereof, and which covers nearly 400 pages more. The facts alleged are so numerous and complicated that it is impracticable to state all or even the substance of them here, and a few only of the most important of them can be presented.

The Mariposa Company is a corporation organized prior to the year 1868, under the laws of this state for the purpose of owning and operating the mining property known as the Mariposa estate situated in California, and consisting of seventy square miles of land. The company had issued coupon bonds secured by a mortgage upon its estate and it owed a floating debt and had issued preferred and common stock. John W. Brumagim held the legal title to the estate which he had acquired for his brother Mark Brumagim at a cost of $300,000, and the company was in default in the payment of interest upon the mortgage. On the 25th day of April, 1868, John W. Brumagim conveyed the estate to Mark Brumagim and Edward B. Walworth and John J. McEwen, as trustees, and to their successors and assigns forever, subject to the payment to him of the sum of $300,000, upon certain trusts mentioned in the deed of conveyance, among which were the following: To apply the net proceeds of the mining operations carried on upon the estate to the payment of the *207 $300,000, to tlie payment oí dividends at ten per cent per annum upon certificates to be issued by the trustees to an amount not exceeding $4,000,000, to be known as Mariposa certificates, to the payment of a dividend not to exceed ten per cent per annum upon the preferred stock of the Mariposa Company, to the payment of the principal of the Mariposa certificates under certain conditions, and upon certain contingencies to sell the estate at public auction, and to apply the proceeds of the sale as in the trust deed mentioned, among other things upon the trust certificates, and the preferred and common stock of the company. Walworth resigned as trustee, and the defendant John A. Stewart was appointed in his place. After the 1st day of July, 1868, the holders of the bonds of the Mariposa Company, and its other creditors and its stockholders as provided in the trust deed, to a very large extent, exchanged their bonds, debts and stocks for the Mariposa certificates issued by the trustees, and at the same time paid certain assessments as provided in the trust deed, and in that way trust certificates were issued to the •amount of $4,000,000. The plaintiff, in March and April, 1870, purchased one hundred shares of the preferred stock of the company at the par valne of $100, and trust certificates of the par value of $10,000. In March, 1871, the Mariposa estate was sold for taxes and purchased for Donohoe and Kelly in the names of five other persons, and title was perfected in them. In June, 1871, the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of New York was organized under the laws of this state with a capital of $15,000,000, divided into preferred and common stock, for the purpose of taking title to the Mariposa estate. The stock of that company Avas exchangeable for the trust certificates and for the stocks and bonds of the Mariposa Company upon certain conditions specified, and in November, 1871, the plaintiff surrendered to it his trust certificates and his shares of stock in the Mariposa Company and paid in addition an assessment of $500, and he received for his certificates, stock and money 247½ shares of stock in the new company, and his holdings of stock in that company amounted *208 in March, 1813, to 250 shares. The nominal holders of the Mariposa estate under the tax title conveyed the estate to Mark Brumagim,. and lie subsequently conveyed it to John W. Brumagim. The trustees under the trust deed of 1863 also sold the estate at public auction, and at such sale John W. Brumagim became the purchaser, and he subsequently conveyed the estate to the new corpoiation upon certain terms and conditions specified. In 1814 the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of California was incorporated under the laws of California with a capital stock of $15,000,000, and the prior corporation conveyed the Mariposa estate to that corporation. The stock of the New York corporation was exchangeable for the stock of the California corporation, and the plaintiff and other stockholders exchanged their stock in the New York corporation for stock in the California corporation. Subsequently the Mariposa estate owned by the California corporation was sold under judgments and tax sales and purchased for the defendant Donohoe, and title was perfected under such sales,, and thereafter the estate was conveyed to the California corporation, and to secure a portion of the purchase price it executed a mortgage upon the estate to Donohoe, and subsequently it also executed a mortgage to the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company to secure the payment of bonds issued by it. Default having been made in the payment of the money secured by the mortgage to Donohoe he commenced an action to foreclose his mortgage, making the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of California and the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company defendants. Those defendants defended that action and it resulted in a decree of foreclosure, and the estate was sold under that decree, and at. such sale in August, 1882, was purchased by one Wensinger for Donohoe and Kelly, and he subsequently conveyed the estate to Donohoe, who still later sold it for $300,000.

Thereafter this action was commenced, and in his complaint the plaintiff alleges that all the dealings of Kelly and Donohoe with the Mariposa estate, during more than twelve years, were fraudulent and intended to injure and defraud the plaintiff *209 and others similai'ly situated with him, and his prayer for relief, covering about eighteen printed pages, is, in substance, that all the conveyances, mortgages, judgments, sales and other transactions above mentioned, and many transactions not here mentioned, be declared fraudulent and void and set aside, and that Kelly and Donohoe account for the whole estate and all its proceeds.

We must notice particularly the attitude of the plaintiff in this action, and the right in which he presents himself to the court in his complaint. He alleges, in the opening paragraph, of his complaint above quoted, that he sues as a stockholder of the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of California; and in a subsequent portion of the complaint he further alleges: “

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
676 F. Supp. 2d 285 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hilpert v. Yarmosh
77 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Syracuse Television, Inc. v. Channel 9, Syracuse, Inc.
51 Misc. 2d 188 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Smith v. Sperling
117 F. Supp. 781 (S.D. California, 1953)
Kantor v. Stendig
190 Misc. 861 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)
Mellen v. Modern Parlor Frame Corp.
73 N.E.2d 247 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Klum v. Clinton Trust Co.
183 Misc. 340 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)
DiTomasso v. Loverro
250 A.D. 206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Dana v. Morgan
232 F. 85 (Second Circuit, 1916)
Grant v. Greene Consolidated Copper Co.
169 A.D. 206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Colgan v. Finck
167 A.D. 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Michel v. Betz
108 A.D. 241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Craig v. James
71 A.D. 238 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Hallenborg v. Greene
66 A.D. 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Bush v. . O'Brien
58 N.E. 106 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Atlantic Trust Co. v. Haskin-Wood Vulcanizing Co.
32 N.Y.S. 956 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 N.E. 263, 143 N.Y. 203, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 158, 98 Sickels 203, 1894 N.Y. LEXIS 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-donohoe-ny-1894.