Cannon v. Wiscassett Mills Co.

141 S.E. 344, 195 N.C. 119, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 27
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 31, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 344 (Cannon v. Wiscassett Mills Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cannon v. Wiscassett Mills Co., 141 S.E. 344, 195 N.C. 119, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 27 (N.C. 1928).

Opinion

CoNnob, J.

Defendant, "Wiscassett Mills Company, is a corporation, duly organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina. It is engaged in business as authorized by its charter, in the town of Albe-marle, in Stanly County, North Carolina. Its eodefendants are directors,, of said corporation and constitute a majority of its board. Plaintiffs are stockholders of said corporation, and also members of its board of directors. The said corporation has been very successful in its business, and after paying dividends, both in cash and in stock, now has in its treasury, a surplus, made up of its accumulated profits.

The capital stock of said corporation is $3,600,000.00, all of which is now outstanding. At its regular annual meeting, held pursuant to its by-laws, in July, 1926, its stockholders, by resolution duly adopted, fixed as its working capital, to be set up and reserved out of its accumulated profits, the sum of $1,800,000.00. At a meeting of the board of directors, held immediately after the adjournment of the regular annual meeting of the stockholders, the action of the stockholders, in fixing a working capital for said corporation, was approved and ratified. The financial statement of the assets and liabilities of said corporation, as of 30 June, 1926, showed a surplus of $2,168,571.70. At this date no sum had been set up by the stockholders as a working capital. This financial statement was prepared by the treasurer of said corporation, and was submitted to the stockholders at their annual meeting for their information as to the financial condition of the corporation.

At the meeting of the board of directors, the following resolution was offered by the plaintiffs, or on their behalf:

“Resolved, that whereas this company has on hand and in its treasury accumulated profits not necessary or needful to be retained by the company to carry on the business for which said .company is chartered and organized and in which it is engaged, such condition being evidenced *121 by the fact that this company has accumulated profits invested in low interest-bearing securities, to wit: United States Liberty Bonds, United States Treasury Certificates, Federal Land Bank Bonds, and Federal Farm Land Bank Bonds, for more than two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000.00),
“And, whereas, under the laws of the State of North Carolina, under which this company was chartered, organized and exists, the stockholders are entitled to have the accumulated profits of the corporation, above the amount in good faith fixed by the stockholders for working capital, paid out as dividends,
“And, whereas, under no circumstances can the surplus profits now in the hands of this corporation invested in the securities above named be required in good faith as working capital,
“Therefore, be it resolved, that the directors of this corporation do hereby declare a dividend upon the outstanding capital stock of this company in the sum of thirty-three and one-third per cent (33%%) and that said dividends be paid by delivering and transferring to the stockholders of this company the investments held by it in bonds and treasury certificates as hereinbefore enumerated in proportion as their stock holdings shall respectively entitle them.”

Upon a record vote taken at said meeting of the board of directors, this resolution was not adopted. Thereupon, the following resolution was offered in behalf of plaintiffs:

“Resolved, that the officers of this company be directed to secure an .appraisal of the property of this company, carried as inventory at its true market value, that the amount carried on the books as depreciation be reduced so as to represent the actual cash value depreciation of machinery.”

Upon a record vote taken at said meeting of the board of directors, this resolution was not adopted.

Thereafter, the majority of the board of directors of defendant corporation, having declined and refused to declare a dividend among the stockholders of the whole amount of its accumulated profits, exceeding the amount reserved as a working capital as fixed by the stockholders, at their regular annual meeting, and thereafter approved by the board of directors, plaintiffs, as stockholders, on 12 February, 1927, began this action in the Superior Court of Stanly County by causing a summons to be issued therefrom returnable before his Honor, James L. Webb, judge of the Superior Court, regularly assigned to hold the courts of the Thirteenth Judicial District. C. S., 868.

Upon the hearing before Judge Webb, the parties appeared, and, as found by him, “through counsel, presented the facts as set out in the pleadings, and argued the case at length.” No evidence was offered at *122 said bearing in support of tbe contentions of tbe parties witb respect to tbe facts in controversy. Tbe judge found tbe facts, from tbe pleadings, and after setting out sucb facts in full, rendered bis judgment, as follows:

“It is, therefore, on motion of counsel for plaintiffs, ordered, adjudged, and decreed tbat a writ of mandamus issue against tbe defendant, Wiscassett Mills Company, and tbe directors thereof, commanding it and them, forthwith and without unreasonable delay, to declare a dividend among its stockholders of $1,495,694.40, accumulated profits of tbe corporation, which is in excess of tbe amount reserved by tbe stockholders, and approved by tbe directors, as a working capital and to be paid in capital of tbe corporation.
“It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed tbat tbe defendants pay tbe costs of this action.”

To this judgment defendants excepted. They appealed therefrom to this Court, assigning numerous errors, as set out in tbe case on appeal.

Tbe statute invoked by plaintiffs for their relief, upon tbe facts admitted in tbe pleadings is as follows:

“C. S., 1178. Tbe directors of every corporation created under this chapter shall in January of each year, unless some specific time for tbat purpose is fixed in its charter or by-laws, and in tbat case at tbe time so fixed, after reserving over and above its capital stock paid in, as a working capital for tbe corporation, whatever sum has been fixed by tbe stockholders, declare a dividend among its stockholders of tbe whole of its accumulated profits exceeding tbe amount reserved, and pay it to tbe stockholders on demand.”

This statute is clearly applicable in this action. A sum to be reserved as a working capital, out of tbe accumulated profits of tbe corporation has been fixed by tbe stockholders and approved by tbe directors. This sum, fixed at $1,800,000.00, added to tbe capital stock of the corporation — $3,600,000.00—makes $5,400,000.00. Tbe financial statements prepared by tbe treasurer of tbe corporation and submitted to tbe stockholders and directors, show tbat tbe book value of tbe corporation’s assets on 30 June, 1926, was $7,661,870.89, and on 31 December, 1926, was $7,490,903.04.

These assets are invested in machinery, real estate, inventory, notes and accounts, bonds and securities, and in bank balances.

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

Related

Wilson Realty Co. v. City and County Planning Board
92 S.E.2d 82 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Better Home Furniture Co. of Winston-Salem v. Baron
91 S.E.2d 236 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Nebel v. Nebel
85 S.E.2d 876 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Hill v. Erwin Mills, Inc.
80 S.E.2d 358 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Steele v. Locke Cotton Mills Co.
58 S.E.2d 620 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Farmers Cooperative Co. v. Birmingham
86 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. Iowa, 1949)
George E. Warren Co. v. United States
76 F. Supp. 587 (D. Massachusetts, 1948)
Amick v. . Coble
23 S.E.2d 854 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Brown v. Board of Commissioners of Richmond County
23 S.E.2d 315 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Highlanders v. Wiseman
299 N.W. 459 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1941)
R. L. Blaffer & Co. v. Commissioner
37 B.T.A. 851 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1938)
Brooks v. . Avery County
175 S.E. 199 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Holmes Electric Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
150 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 S.E. 344, 195 N.C. 119, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-wiscassett-mills-co-nc-1928.