Dyo v. Winningham

30 S.W.2d 381, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 692
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 19, 1930
DocketNo. 2431.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 S.W.2d 381 (Dyo v. Winningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dyo v. Winningham, 30 S.W.2d 381, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 692 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinions

PELPHREY, C. J.

This is a suit by appellee as intervener against Tsutomu Dyo, H. Kishi, North Mexico Mining Company, S. A., a corporation, and the Santo Domingo Mining Company, S. A.

The original pleadings are not included in the transcript, but it appears from appel-lee’s brief that the suit was originally brought by Flavia Cisneros Colonna and M. M. Win-ningham, as guardian of the estate of Guillermo Horico Colonna, a minor.

Later Winningham, as administrator of the estate of Benito Colonna, deceased, filed his petition in intervention, and upon that pleading the case was tried.

The administrator for cause of action alleged that during the lifetime of Benito Colonna, and during the month of May, 1923, Colonna entered into a contract with the defendants Dyo, Kishi, and others, known as a Declaration of Trust of the North Mexico Mining Company of Mexico, a trust estate unincorporated; that said contract was a partnership agreement; that by the term's of said agreement Benito Colonna, in consideration of services rendered and to be rendered, and for the transfer of any rights he might have in certain mining claims in the State of Chihuahua, Republic of Mexico, was to receive an undivided one-tenth interest in the assets of said mining company or its successors ; that thereafter, pursuant to said agreement, the North Mexico Mining Company, S! A., No. 1, was organized with a capital stock of 50,000 pesos, and that Benito Colon-na subscribed for and had an interest in said company equal to 200 Shares at $25 each; that the articles of such corporation provide that his interest in said company was the above number of shares; that his interest was so recognized by Dyo and Kishi, who were the managing officers of the corporation and at all times in complete control of the company’s affairs; that on the 17th day of November, 1925, the appellants organized North Mexico Mining Company No. 2, S. A., with a capital stock of 3,000,000 pesos; that the Sabinal Mining Company and the North Mexico Mining Company, S. A., No. 1, were merged in the North Mexico Mining Company No. 2, S. A., the assets of the North Mexico Mining Company No. 1, S. A., being taken in and recognized in the reorganization as having a value of 2,000,000 pesos or two-thirds of the new corporation; that appellants have refused to recognize his interest in the reorganized corporation and have refused to issue to him or to his representative any stock therein; that $600,000 worth of the assets of the North Mexico Mining Company No. 2, S. A., were later transferred to the Santo Domingo Mining Company, S. A., which has possession and control thereof; that Dyo and Kishi have at all times been ■ the president, vice president, and general manager of all the corporations named and have assisted in the fraud and deceit in preventing Benito Colonna and his estate from participating in *382 tlie assets or dividends of the reorganized company.

Appellee prayed for an accounting; for damages for the conversion of his stock, which he alleged to be of the value of $75,-000; and for his share of the profits thereon.

Appellants answered by a general demurrer, a general denial, and specially denied the existence of a partnership as alleged by appellee ; specially alleged that Benito Colon-na fraudulently -represented to Dyo and others that he owned certain mining claims in the Republic of Mexico; that he had denounced according to law a claim known as “La Palestina” and that he was in position to locate and denounce two other claims known as “Australia” and “Anahauc”; that such rights held by him were of great value; that he would transfer his said rights to the corporations then in contemplation; that appellants relied upon such representations, and permitted him to state or have' stated that in consideration of a transfer of such rights to the North Mexico Mining Company, S. A., No. 1, he was to have a certain interest and own certain capital stock in said corporation; that there was no consideration for the granting to him of the interest in said corporation, in that, he did hot legally denounce the claim known as “La Palestina”'and that all rights were denied him in said claim by the Mexican authorities, and that he failed to follow up and denounce the other two claims; denied that any interest of Colonna in'the North Mexico Mining Company, S. A., No. 1, was ever recognized by appellants, and that he was ever entitled to any interest in said corporation i that they were ever guilty of any fraud or attempt to cheat Colonna out of any interest in said corporation.

Appellants further pleaded res ad judicata by virtue of a certain suit by Flavia Cisneros Vda. de Colonna, as executrix of the estate of Benito Colonna in the civil court of the District of Brovas, State of Chihuahua, Republic of Mexico.

Appellee filed his trial amendment in which he demurred generally to appellant’s answer, denied generally the allegations thereof, and pleaded certain laws of the Republic of Mexico, by the-provisions of which it is claimed Colonna parted with a good, Valid, and legal consideration for the interest sued for.

Appellants, by trial amendment, also pleaded certain provisions of the Mexican law as showing that there was a failure of consideration.

The cause was tried to the court and judgment rendered in favor of appellant against Dyo, Kishi,- and North Mexico Mining Company, S. A., a corporation, jointly and severally in the sum of $40,000, and in favor of the defendant Santo Domingo Mining Company.

Dyo, Kishi, and the North Mexico Mining Company, S. A., have all appealed.

Opinion.

The points and propositions upon which appellants seek a reversal are:

“I. In order to warrant the judgment against North Mexico Mining Company, S. A. No. 2, some wrongful or neglectful act of the corporation must be pleaded and proved.

“II. Proof that Kishi and Dyo were the . chief officers of the corporation and that they converted the stock of intervenor’s intestate, and would not make their act the act of the corporation, and render it liable for such conversion.

“III. There was no proof that North Mexico Mining Company S. A. No. 2 converted the stock of Benito Colonna.

“IV. There was no sufficient proof to show that appellant H. Kishi converted the stock of Benito Colonna, so that the judgment against him was without foundation of fact.

“V. There was no sufficient proof to show that appellant Tsutomu Dyo converted any stock of Benito Colonna, so that the judgment against him was without foundation of fact.

“VI. The consideration for the contract by which Colonna was to obtain 200 shares of the North Mexico Mining Company stock failed because he was unable to either point out or secure denouncement of the mining claims which he was to 'turn over to the company for said stock.”

The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parts material to the issues as we view them will here be Quoted:

“1. That the deceased, Benito Colonna, with 200 shares, was the associate of Tsutomu Dyo, with 700 shares. Tomonichi Nakano, with 660 shares, Simobu Ogawa, with 140 shares, Masaki Suski, with 200 shares, and Ihei Kasai, with 100 shares, in the formation of a private corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, called the North Mexico Mining Company, S.

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

Related

Rodriguez, Rosendo, Iii
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011
Winningham v. Dyo
48 S.W.2d 600 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 S.W.2d 381, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyo-v-winningham-texapp-1930.