Equitable Trust Co. v. National Bank of Commerce

211 F. 688, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1137
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 12, 1914
DocketNo. 4094
StatusPublished

This text of 211 F. 688 (Equitable Trust Co. v. National Bank of Commerce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Equitable Trust Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 211 F. 688, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1137 (E.D. Mo. 1914).

Opinion

DYER, District Judge.

It would be useless and unprofitable to enter into a lengthy discussion of the different phases of the evidence contained in the voluminous transcript now before the court. Such portions as may be considered important as bearing upon the real and controlling question in the case will either be copied or briefly referred to.

The claims advanced by and the contentions of the complainant and defendant are so numerous that in a measure they become confusing, and if the court should undertake to pass upon all of them, the chances are the main question would be lost sight of, or be at least greatly obscured.

The complainant in its hill seeks to recover of the defendant the sum of $150,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the 1st day of July, 1911. The legal basis of the claim is that [690]*690the defendant has received certain moneys belonging to the complainant, which in equity and good conscience should be paid to it. This claim is stoutly denied by the defendant. The issue is sharply drawn, and its consideration and determination should not be clouded by other and less important questions, now vigorously urged upon the attention of the court by able and distinguished counsel. If the complainant’s claim is not well founded, the bill should be dismissed. If, upon the contrary, it is well founded, there should be no delay in granting the relief prayed for in the bill. '

[1] The facts—the important facts—as the court understands them are substantially these:

Some years prior to the autumn and winter of 1906, there was duly incorporated under the laws of the state of West Virginia the Iola Portland Cement Company. By its charter the company had a preferred capital stock of $1,500,000, divided into 60,000 shares of the par value of $25 each, and a common capital stock of $3,000,000, divided into 120,000 shares of $25 each.

The charter provided that the holders of the preferred stock should not be entitled to vote, but that they should be preferred as to dividends limited to 7 per cent, per annum, and preferred as to the principal of their stock and arrears of dividends upon dissolution.

The company was in the years 1906 and 1907, and for years prior and subsequent, engaged in the manufacture of Portland cement at Iola in the state of Kansas. In the latter part of 1906 and the early part of 1907 its stock, especially the common stock, was valuable and desirable.

At or near the same place in Kansas another plant, known as the Kansas Portland Cement Company was also engaged in the manufacture of cement.

At the head of this latter named plant was one George E. Nicholson. His attention was attracted to the Iola plant, and he concluded that the ownership of the Iola stock was very desirable. He thereupon, to wit, in the latter part of the year 1906, set about to get an option upon the stock, and thereafter avail himself of the option and buy the stock.

. The evidence of Nicholson was taken at the hearing, and it throws much light upon the manner and means employed by him in obtaining the option, and the sources from which he obtained the money to 'pay for the stock. So much of his testimony as seems pertinent is as follows:

“Q. State wtien and how you became interested in the Iola Portland Cement Company. A. Well, how I became interested, or rather when, was' in December of 1906 and January of 1907. How I became interested was largely through my knowledge of the business in the plant we had and the trouble that had occurred from time to time between the Iola Company and the company I represented or whs president and general manager of. Q. What was the name of that company? A. The Kansas Portland Cement Company. Our going into the field created a good deal of feeling on their part, and notwithstanding,' as I said a moment ago, we paid as high as $2 a barrel for our cement, when we got ready to put our product on the market we sold as low as 80 cents through an action on their part that we looked upon as trying to force us out of the business. We were the second plaint in the [691]*691West, and they were the first—in saying ‘West’ I mean Middle West. There was more or less contention from time to time, and when it finally developed that there was a representative over there looking the Iola property over, we naturally proceeded to try to ascertain who he represented. It so happened that he had been a professor in chemistry, a gentleman who was out there in Ann Arbor, and my chief superintendent, Mr. E. C. Champion, had taken chemistry of him, and through that connection we began to investigate.. I sent a gentleman from New Xork, and in due time got in touch with the principals involved in the purchasing of the Iola plant, which at that time consisted of Holmes & Brown of New Xork, I think I may say—they formerly lived in Detroit—and H. G. Hamilton, of Xoungstown, Ohio. In due time I was brought in touch with the principals, first, I think, in New Xork, and afterwards in Cleveland and later in St. Louis, and after negotiations covering some weeks, the deal was consummated.
“Q. Mr. Nicholson, please state what was the plan after the negotiations that you have referred to, under which you sought to acquire a large part of the common capital stock of the Iola Portland Cement Company. In other words, did you undertake to accomplish that under the terms of an option that was held by H. G. Hamilton, of Xoungstown, Ohio? A. Xes, we found —in answer to your question I will say, we found Mr. Hamilton and Holmes and Brown had an option on the property to acquire the common capital stock of the company, consisting of 120,000 shares of a par value of $3,000,000. Q. State briefly what that option was, Mr. Nicholson. A. I think the option was between Mr. Bassett as president of the company and some other members of his executive committee, for the acquiring of the common capital stock of the company at the value of $25 per share. There was an agreement on the part of the holders of the option to take all of the common stock offered at that price, with a guaranty on the part of the sellers to deliver not less than 51 per cent. It further carried with it an obligation on the part of the purchasers to take all the preferred stock of the company, consisting of $1,500,000, that might be offered in connection with the sale of the common stock. That preferred stock was to be taken at retirement price, that is, par and 10 per cent., so that it made a share of $25 cost the purchaser $27.50. Q. That is of the preferred? A. That is of the preferred. Q. What was finally done under that option, Mr. Nicholson, after you became interested in it? A. Well, after considerable negotiations back and forth, when I felt that I had the proposition pretty well in hand, I came on to St. Louis with a view of financing it
“Q. Let me interrupt you just a moment: Did you, before coming to St. Louis—before we take up the financing of the purchase of that stock under that option—did you make any arrangements for having the rights of the holders of that option to buy the stock as you have outlined, transferred or assigned to you? A. Xes; I had an agreement to that effect. Q. Xou had an agreement with'them to that effect? A. Xes, sir. Q. State what you did looking towards acquiring the stock under that option. A. My next step of necessity was to finance it.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 F. 688, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equitable-trust-co-v-national-bank-of-commerce-moed-1914.