Bryan v. Hamrick

106 F.2d 245, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 1939
DocketNo. 1696
StatusPublished

This text of 106 F.2d 245 (Bryan v. Hamrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryan v. Hamrick, 106 F.2d 245, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703 (10th Cir. 1939).

Opinions

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

December 1, 1920, E. S. Horn, John E. Horn and H. O. Bland, of Tulsa, Oklahoma, executed and filed for record with the registrar of deeds of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, an instrument which they denominated “Declaration of Trust of the Imperial Royalties Company”. They named themselves as the trustees of said trust and stated that said trustees should hold all of the funds and property called the trust fund then or thereafter paid, transferred or conveyed to them or their successors as trustees in trust for the purposes and with the powers and subject to the limitations thereinafter declared for the benefit of the cestuis que trustent (shareholders). It was stated that neither the trustees nor the cestuis que trustent (shareholders) shall ever be personally liable as partners or otherwise; that it was not a partnership, but that for all debts the trust should be liable as such to the extent of the trust fund only; that in all contracts or instrument? [246]*246it should be expressly stipulated that the cestuis que trustent (shareholders) shall not be liable; that the trustees should have the power and discretion as if absolute owners to invest the trust fund for the operation of the business of owning, buying, selling and otherwise acquiring oil and gas royalties and leases, both developed and undeveloped, in the United States of America and Old Mexico.

The trust was capitalized in the sum of $1,000,000, divided into 500,000 preferred shares of the par value of $1 each and 500,000 common shares of the par value of $1 each to be fully paid and non-assessable. Three separate tracts of land containing in the aggregate 330 acres, all situate in Oklahoma, /were described in which E. S. Horn had acquired as trustee an interest in their oil and gas contents and which should be taken- over by the trust on payment of $10,000 out of the trust fund to be raised by selling shares to those who would purchase, and the trustees were authorized to purchase such additional oil royalties as they might deem advisable, using any of the trust funds provided by cestuis que trustent (shareholders) for that purpose, said purchases to be in the names of the trustees, they to hold all properties so acquired subject to the provisions of the declaration for the sole use and benefit of the cestuis que trustent who should be trust beneficiaries only.

The form of the certificates for preferred and common shares was prescribed in the- declaration. The price at which they were to be sold was left to the determination of the trustees. The preferred shares however entitled the holders to an annual dividend of 12 per cent out of the net profits of the trust, and the common shares up to 6 per cent annually, and if any surplus of earnings remained after payment of dividends on both classes of shares such surplus might be used at the discretion of the trustees in acquiring additional royalty interests for the trust or disbursed as extra dividends, both classes of shares participating equally.’ All holders of shares were to be bound by the declaration of trust. The office of the trust was to be maintained at Tulsa, Oklahoma, unless the trustees deemed it advisable to move it elsewhere. 'The Oklahoma statute (Section 11821, 60 Okl. St.Ann. § 172) provides:

“Such express trusts shall be limited in the duration thereof either to a definite period not to exceed twenty-one (21) years, or to the period of the life or lives of the beneficiary or beneficiaries thereof. ■ The instrument creating the trust shall specify the period of duration thereof within the limitations herein provided.” In the declaration of trust the term of the trust was to be for a period of 20 years and lives in being, but the trustees were given power at their discretion to terminate the trust by dividing the trust fund or the proceeds thereof among the cestuis que trustent. It is conceded this trust will expire on December 1, 1940. In case of decision by the trustees to terminate the trust all property interests owned by the Trust shall be converted into money, and proceeds of sale less actual expenses shall be distributed in accordance with their respective interests to the cestuis que trustent (shareholders). It is declared that, should it seem judicious .to the trustees so to do, they at their discretion may convey the trust funds and other assets to trustees of a new trust or to a corporation.

°“The Trustees shall have the power and authority to enlarge the Trust Estate at any time by increasing the number of Beneficial Interests comprising the Trust, and any such increase in the capitalization of the Trust shall be in accordance with the plan of organization and operation as outlined herein for the management and conduct of the Trust Estate. * * *

“The ownership of shares hereunder shall not entitle the shareholder to any title in or to the Trust property, or right to call for a partition, division or accounting of the same.

“This Declaration of Trust may be altered or amended by the Trustees, provided that such alterations or amendments are in conformity to the laws governing Common Law Trusts, and in case of amendment or alteration, a copy thereof shall be filed with the Recorder of Deeds, in the county where this instrument has been filed, and then the same shall be attached to and made a part of this instrument.”

The three trustees signed and acknowledged the declaration a-s a deed 'would be executed in Oklahoma.

On December 26, 1922, the trustees, E. S. Horn, John E. Horn and H. O. Bland, amended the declaration of trust by increasing its capitalization from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 to be represented by 1,000,-000 preferred shares par value $1 each and 1,000,000 common shares of no par value.

[247]*247On May 12, 1925, the said trustees again amended the declaration of trust by increasing the fund to $6,000,000 to be divided into 3,000,000 preferred shares of the par value of $1 each and 3,000,000 common shares of no par value.

December 1, 1930, E. S. Horn, H. O. Bland and John E. Horn again amended the declaration of trust in capitalization, thus:

“This Trust shall be divided into Five’ Million (5,000,000) Preferred shares of the par value of One Dollar ($1.00) each, Three Hundred Thousand (300,000) Class A Common shares of no par value, all such shares of each class to be issued fully paid and non-assessable.

“Class A Preferred shares represented by certificates outstanding shall be entitled to dividends or distributions at $1.80 per share per annum out of the receipts of the trust before any dividends may be paid on the Common shares of either class; * * * and shall represent and shall in all respects, including all rights to dividends, distributions and payments be equal to and the same as a block of fifteen (15) Preferred shares, except that Class A Preferred shares shall never be entitled to dividends exceeding $1.80 per share per annum (save and except such additional or special and extra dividends as the trustees may declare under the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (c) of paragraph 19 following); and said Class A Preferred shares shall always be entitled to fifteen times the annual dividends paid on Preferred shares, not exceeding, however (except as to the additional, or special and extra dividends aforesaid), One Dollar and Eighty Cents ($1.80) per share per annum,

“Class A Common shares shall represent and shall in all respects, including all rights to dividends, distributions and payments, be equal to, and the same as, a block of fifteen (15) Common shares. * * *

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

Related

Harvey v. Tyler
69 U.S. 328 (Supreme Court, 1865)
Galpin v. Page
85 U.S. 350 (Supreme Court, 1874)
Cromwell v. County of Sac
94 U.S. 351 (Supreme Court, 1877)
Johnson Co. v. Wharton
152 U.S. 252 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Bryan v. Welch
74 F.2d 964 (Tenth Circuit, 1935)
Bryan v. Welsh
72 F.2d 618 (Tenth Circuit, 1934)
Fletcher v. Superior Court
250 P. 195 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Thompson v. Farmers Exchange Bank
62 S.W.2d 803 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Myers v. Carr
1935 OK 573 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Petroleum Auditors Ass'n v. Landis
1938 OK 200 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Phillips v. Chambers
1935 OK 1055 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Yahola Oil Co. v. Causey
1937 OK 620 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Co.
60 Vt. 1 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1887)
Greer Inv. Co. v. Booth
62 F.2d 321 (Tenth Circuit, 1932)
Hatten v. Hudspeth
99 F.2d 501 (Tenth Circuit, 1938)
Fishel v. Kite
101 F.2d 685 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)
Harmon v. Auditor of Public Accounts
13 N.E. 161 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1887)
State v. Smith
25 A. 277 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Cohen v. Portland Lodge No. 142
144 F. 266 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 F.2d 245, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-v-hamrick-ca10-1939.