Doty v. Oriental Print Works Company

67 A. 586, 28 R.I. 372, 1907 R.I. LEXIS 64
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedJuly 6, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 67 A. 586 (Doty v. Oriental Print Works Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doty v. Oriental Print Works Company, 67 A. 586, 28 R.I. 372, 1907 R.I. LEXIS 64 (R.I. 1907).

Opinion

Dubois, J.

This is the appeal of John Milton Tenney, of Methuen, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from a decree of the Superior Court denying and dismissing his petition for leave to intervene in the above entitled equity cause as a preferred creditor of said Oriental Print Works Company.

The appellant in said petition alleges that he is the owner and holder of ten bonds of said company, numbered from 151 to 160, both inclusive, and that the same were ten of a series of two hundred bonds, of the par value of one thousand dollars each, numbered consecutively from 1 to 200, both inclusive, all bearing date October 1st, 1900, and being of the same tenor and for the same term of twenty years, and purported to be secured by a trust deed of the lands, buildings, machinery, leases of property and' fixtures of said Oriental Print Works Company, bearing date October 1st, 1900; that no other of said bonds than those so owned and held by him are outstanding or held by any purchaser for value or good-faith holder; that a very large amount of property covered by said mortgage has been converted into money and is now in the hands of the receiver appointed in this case, and that there is no lien on said property or the proceeds thereof prior to that of your petitioner on account of said bonds, and that said money is now available for payment to him on account of said bonds. The petition concludes with a prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to file the same against said receiver and said respondent, and that citation issue to him and it requiring them to show cause, if any they have, why the petitioner ought not to be admitted as a preferred creditor of said Oriental Print Works Company, *374 for the amount now in the hands -of the receiver produced by the sale of the property covered by said mortgage, and as an unsecured creditor for the balance of his claim on said bonds, and that the money derived from the sale of the property covered by said mortgage may be paid to him.

The decree appealed from is of the tenor following:

“ This cause came on to be heard on Petition of J. Milton Ten-ney, and was heard upon Agreed Statement of Facts and oral testimony, and was argued by counsel, and it appearing to the Court that the Treasurer of said Oriental Print Works in said Petition mentioned had no authority to negotiate the bonds mentioned in said Petition, and that the consideration received by said Treasurer for said bonds was never paid to or received by said Oriental Printworks, or its Receiver, and that neither said Oriental Print Works, nor its said Receiver, has ratified said sale of said bonds, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the prayer of said Petition be, and it is, hereby denied, and said Petition is hereby dismissed.”

The case was heard in this court upon a transcript of the testimony taken and an admission and agreement made before the Superior Court, and upon an original and supplemental agreed statement of facts. The testimony taken was that of the appellant and that of J. Warren Landor, and the admission and agreement was that “Judge Parlchurst, (the receiver in the case) if present would testify, — that Mr. Wyman never returned the funds which were the proceeds of the sale of the bonds to the Company, and that in a conversation which Judge Parkhurst had with Mr. Wyman in Boston, Mr. Wyman admitted that fact to him and admitted, that he personally paid the interest on those bonds during the time that Mr. Tenney Said he received interest.”

The testimony of the appellant was to the effect that he purchased the bonds in question, and paid for them, December 1st, 1900, the sum of $9,600.00 by check, which afterwards was lost. That the check was the check of the Methuen Plat Company, which he gave as the treasurer of the company; he also offered the ledger and cash book of that company in support of *375 his testimony; that he cut off the coupons as they became due, put them in his local bank for collection, and got credit for them up to October, 1905, when the cashier reported that the coupons had come back, and reported that there were no funds —the coupons were then offered in evidence. He further testified that he had first known Ferdinand A. Wyman about twenty years before,when he had occasion for the services of a lawyer and was talking with his brothers about it; that he said he didn’t know what lawyer to go to, as he had never employed one; his brother said he knew of Ferdinand A. Wyman, in Boston; that he went there at once and employed Wyman, who managed his affairs with diligence and success, to his great satisfaction; that a year or two after that Mr. Wyman sold him $16,000.00 worth of bonds of an electric lighting company, which paid him all right; that in the course of two or three years more Wyman sold him $10,000.00 worth of bonds of the Old-town Electric Company; that, on account of his age, he had thought of arranging his affairs, as he had a wife and an only daughter, so he had Wyman make his will, and appointed him as one of the executors therein; that the will was in existence at-the time of the purchase of the Oriental bonds; that he had great confidence in Wyman at that time, and bought and paid for the bonds in good faith, that he understood it was a first mortgage on the property; that after that he had dealings concerning the Oldtown bonds, which had matured, and which he delivered to Mr. Wyman for sale; that Mr. Wyman sold the bonds, and kept the money for more than a year and a half, pretending that there had been a “little hitch” in the proceedings which had delayed the sale of the bonds; that he employed new counsel, and acted under their advice; that he said to Wyman, “See here, I know all about it, you got that money a year and a half ago, and I want it;” that afterwards Wyman paid him for those bonds; that this occurred a year or two before “this thing came up.”

In cross-examination, Mr. Tenney said that he had an agreement with Mr. Wyman and his brother under which he had received $3,150.00. The agreement was introduced in evidence and is of the tenor following:

*376 "This Agreement between Ferdinand A. Wyman, John M. Tenney, and Alphonso A. Wyman, witnesseth as follows:
“Whereas, said Ferdinand A. Wyman sold to said Tenney (10) bonds of the Oriental Print Works Company numbered 151 to 160 inclusive, for the sum of Nine Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($9,600) which was paid by said Tenney to said Ferdinand A. Wyman on or about December 1st, 1900, as the purchase price of said bonds
“And whereas said Tenney claims that by reason of the circumstances attending said transaction said Ferdinand A. Wyman is liable to repay to said Tenney said sum with interest thereon
“And whereas said Tenney has received heretofore in exchange for coupons attached to said bonds the following sums upon the dates stated after the said sums — $300 April 1st, 1901; $300 October 1st, 1901; $300 April 1st, 1902; $300 October 1st, 1902; $300 April 1st, 1903; $300 October 1st, 1903; $300 April 1st, 1904; . $300 October 1st, 1904; $300 April 1st, 1905 — all of which payments were in fact made by funds supplied by said Ferdinand A. Wyman.
“And whereas said Ferdinand A.

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

Related

Allied Textile Printers Corp. v. Dir., Div. of Tax.
368 A.2d 375 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)
Hudson Shipping Co. v. United States
47 Cust. Ct. 49 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. v. United States
20 Cust. Ct. 78 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
Buscaglia v. Tax Court of Puerto Rico
67 P.R. 53 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1947)
Buscaglia v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto Rico
67 P.R. Dec. 57 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1947)
Liberty Lace & Netting Works v. United States
15 Cust. Ct. 180 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A. 586, 28 R.I. 372, 1907 R.I. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doty-v-oriental-print-works-company-ri-1907.