Clark v. National Steel & Wire Co.

72 A. 930, 82 Conn. 178, 1909 Conn. LEXIS 28
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMay 25, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 72 A. 930 (Clark v. National Steel & Wire Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. National Steel & Wire Co., 72 A. 930, 82 Conn. 178, 1909 Conn. LEXIS 28 (Colo. 1909).

Opinion

Baldwin, C. J.

The defendant is a corporation, incorporated in 1902 under th'e general laws of Maine. Its designated corporate purposes were to manufacture iron and steel and their products, and, inter alia, “to engage in any other manufacturing, mining, construction or transportation business of any kind or character whatsoever, and to that end to acquire, hold, own and dispose of any and all property, assets, stocks, bonds and rights of any and every kind; ... to acquire by purchase, subscription or otherwise, and to hold or dispose of, stocks, bonds, or any other obligations of any corporation formed for, or then or theretofore engaged in, or pursuing, any one or more of the kinds of business, purposes, objects or opera *180 tions of any kind herein mentioned; or of any corporation owning or holding the stocks or the obligations of any such corporation; to hold for investment, or otherwise to use, sell or dispose of, any stock, bonds or other obligations of any such other corporation; to aid in any manner, any corporation whose stock, bonds or other obligations are held or are in any manner guaranteed by the Company, and to do any other acts or things for the preservation, protection, improvement, or enhancement of the value of any such stock, bonds or other obligations, or to do any acts or things designed for any such purpose; and, while owner of any such stock, bonds or other obligations, to exercise all the rights, powers and privileges of ownership thereof, and to exercise any and all voting power thereon; ... to make and perform contracts of any kind and description, in connection with the business herein set out not contrary to the laws of Maine; and in carrying on its business, or for the purpose of attaining or furthering any of its objects, to do any and all other powers which a co-partnership or natural person could do and exercise, and which now or hereafter may be authorized by law.”

In 1904 the board of directors unanimously resolved that “it is to the best interests of the stockholders to establish a voting, trust for a period of three years from September 1, 1904, the voting trustees to be Messrs. H. E. Huntington, Ogden Mills, and Henry W. Monroe,” and approved a form of a voting trust agreement, which was thereupon duly executed by a majority of the stockholders and these trustees, and, in to ken.of its assent to act under it as a depositary and transfer agent, by the Knickerbocker Trust Company of New York City.

The agreement was expressed as being between the shareholders of the corporation, who should become parties thereto, and the three trustees. Its recitals were as follows: “Whereas, the places of residence of the said stockholders are widely separated and in many instances remote *181 from the State of Maine, wherein meetings of the stockholders of said company are required to be held, as appears more fully by the places of residence set opposite the names of those who subscribe these presents, thus rendering their personal attendance at such meetings inconvenient and in many cases practically impossible; and whereas, all of the said Trustees reside, or have places of business, in the City, County and State of New York, in the United States of America, where is also located the principal place for the transaction of the business of the said Company; and whereas, said stockholders deem it to be advisable and for the best interests of all of the stockholders of the Company that the control and supervision of its business shall, for a definite period of time, be vested in trustees of large experience, who are so situated as to residence and otherwise, that they can keep in touch with its affairs and seek to maintain its business upon a firm and lasting basis; and whereas, the trustees have been selected by the stockholders because of their large business experience, and have agreed to keep in touch with the progress and management of the affairs of the said Company during the period hereinafter named, and to use their best endeavors, and exercise the authority resulting from the Control of the stock transferred to them pursuant to the terms hereof, to make effective the desires of the said stockholders as hereinbefore recited.”

It then provided, as respects each shareholder who should deposit his stock certificate with the Knickerbocker Trust Company, indorsed for transfer to the three trustees, whether he should or should not sign the agreement, as follows:—

t The Trust Company, provided the holders of a ipajority in amount of the capital stock of the National Steel and Wire Company should be so deposited (as it subsequently was), was to transfer the shares of each to the trustees, giving him a transferable “certificate of interest in” stock for the *182 same number of shares. The legal title was to be in them for the three years, with full voting power. Such company was to hold the original stock certificates during the term, receive all dividends upon the shares evidenced by them, and pay them over to the holders of the new certificates of interest in stock. The trustees were to use their best judgment, from time to time, to select suitable directors of the National Steel and Wire Company in the interests of all its shareholders, and were not to sell or .place any charge on the shares held in their names. There was no provision made in terms for any payments by way of compensation to the trustees. It was provided that the Trust Company should receive a reasonable compensation for its services, but from whom it was to come was not stated.

This agreement soon went into effect and the services which it contemplated were performed by the Trust Company at the request of the officers and directors of the National Steel and Wire Company. For two years the latter paid the former for them $250 a year, which was a reasonable compensation. Such agreements are common, and it is customary that payments for such services should be made, not by the trustees, but by the corporation whose shares may be the-subject of the trust.

The committee reported in favor of the allowance of the claim of the Trust Company for compensation at the same rate for the following two years.

It is a claim that has no merit, unless it would have been collectible from the National Steel and Wire Company, had it not been put in the hands of a receiver. Irrespective of the question of ultra vires, there is no ground on which such a liability could have been enforced, unless it be that of an implied promise arising from its previous request and subsequent payments, or from custom. ‘

There would be no consideration from which to raise the promise. The voting trust, which was created at the instance of the corporation, was one to which it was no *183 party. That its directors voted and the trust agreement recited that its execution would be a benefit to all its shareholders, did not establish that, as a fact, against the latter. It became operative whenever a majority of their number, in amount of interest, should sign it and deposit their stock certificates. There might be a large minority who declined to enter into the arrangement. They certainly could not be bound, even equitably, by any such action of the directors.

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

Related

Watts v. Des Moines Register and Tribune
525 F. Supp. 1311 (S.D. Iowa, 1981)
Healy v. Geilfuss
146 A.2d 5 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1958)
Mannheimer v. Keehn
30 Misc. 2d 584 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Sagalyn v. Meekins, Packard & Wheat Inc.
195 N.E. 769 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A. 930, 82 Conn. 178, 1909 Conn. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-national-steel-wire-co-conn-1909.