Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Mining Co.

20 S.W. 965, 113 Mo. 330, 1892 Mo. LEXIS 34
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided December 31, 1892·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Magfaklake, J.

This is a suit in equity to compel the defendants, a corporation, and its shareholders and directors, to issue to plaintiff certain shares of stock in said corporation and to register the transfer of such shares in the books of the corporation.

The petition charges that on the twentieth day of April, 1888, he and defendants, Perry, Smith and Long, owned and held contracts on large quantities of coal land in Morgan county, comprising the “Stover Coal Mines” and other land; that on that day he, said Perry and. Smith entered into contract with one E. E. Wilson, by which it was agreed that Wilson should organize a corporation with a paid up capital of $1,000,000, for the purpose of completing the purchase of said land and developing the mines. That Wilson for his services was to have $440,000 of the stock and plaintiffs, Perry and Smith, the balance of $560,000.

The petition charged further that said Wilson had organized the corporation under the laws of the state of Kansas, and he is president, and said Perry, Smith and Long, together with B. P. McNair and said Wilson, are shareholders and directors, and hold a controling interest therein; that by a contract dated April 17, 1888, it was agreed that plaintiff was to have out of the $560,000 of the stock shares of the face value of $425,606.72 and that said Perry, Smith and Long were to have the balance of shares of’ the face value of $134,393.28; that defendants refused to issue said stock to him, but threaten to issue the whole to the said Perry, Smith, Long and said McNair.

The answer of defendants Perry, Smith, Long and McNair charged that plaintiff had agreed to advance one half the money to make payments on the land to avoid forfeiture of' contracts, that they paid $15,400 in cash towards payment of the land, and plaintiff had neglected and refused tó pay any part; that [334]*334when they went into tlie enterprise with G-arrett, he represented that he already had a corporation organized with a capital of $250,000, to purchase said lands, all of which was subscribed, which representations were false; that afterwards plaintiff represented that he had made arrangements with E. E. Wilson to organize a corporation with $1,000,000 capital and would issue and sell lands'sufficient to repay them for their advances and for the purchase and payment for other land amounting in all to ten thousand acres; that on the strength of these representations, and a promise by plaintiff that he would assume the payment of $15,000 due to Anthony Arnold as commission for the purchase of some ten thousand acres of land, they entered into the contract mentioned in the petition. They charged that plaintiff wholly failed to perform and carry out his undertakings, and in order to protect themselves from loss of the money they had advanced they entered into the organization of a new corporation.

The defendant corporation admitted that it was a corporation organized under the laws of Kansas, with a capital stock of $1,000,000, that Perry, Smith, Long and McNair claim the same stock demanded by plaintiff; had no information in regard to the contracts and asks the court to adjudicate as to the ownership of the stock.

We are asked in this suit to enforce the specific performance of a contract, made among the promoters of a corporation before, but in contemplation of, its organization. The corporation is asked to issue to complainant paid up capital stock of the face value of about $325,000. The first written agreement found in the record is made by plaintiff and defendants, Long, Perry and Smith, and bears date April 17, 1888. It provides that Perry, Long and Smith are “to have in full for their payment and services in the matter of the [335]*335Morgan county land, comprising about ten thousand acres, bought as contemplated, $160,000, out of.the capital stock of a company to be organized; said stock to be issued under the Wilson agreement, subject to proposed incumbrance.” It was “further agreed that all money expended in the purchase and development of said land is to be refiinded to the persons having paid the same, if the Wilson agreement is consummated. Said Wilson agreement is that said Wilson is to assume the contracts and obligations of the parties hereto and organize a coporation with a paid up capital stock of $1,000,000, said land representing the entire assets of the corporation; and said Wilson is to have $333,300, •of said stock and $300,000 in bonds, for which he is to furnish said corporation $300,000.”

The Wilson agreement referred to as the basis of this one was reduced to writing and signed by Wilson Smith, Perry and plaintiff at Kansas City, Missouri, April 25, 1888. This is the contract, a specific performance of which is invoked, and is as follows:

“This agreement witnesseth: That, whereas L. C. Garrett, L. C. Smith, J. W. Perry and others have an interest in and contracts and options for from six thousand to ten thousand acres of coal land in Morgan •county, Missouri; and
“Whereas they are desirous of forming a corporation for the purpose of completing the purchase of said lands and developing the same, and securing the services of Edwin E. Wilson to that end.
“Now it is hereby further agreed, between said first mentioned parties of the first part and said Wilson of the second part, that a corporation shall be organized with a paid up capital of $1,000,000, said capital io be represented by the value of the lands owned and •contracted for by said party of the first part.
[336]*336“That at once, on the organization of its said corporation, said corporation shall acquire title to the lands above referred to, shall issue bonds to the amount of three hundred thousand ($300,000) dollars, secured by mortgage on the said lands and coal plant. The amount of money obtained by the sale of the aforesaid bonds to be used in' acquiring title to said land, and developing the same as a coal producing property.
“Said Wilson shall become the financial agent of said corporation for the sale of its said bonds, and agrees to take over and sell the same at par, and to furnish money on account of the same to meet the requirements of said corporation in paying for said lands and developing its said property, and account for and turn over to the corporation at once all moneys received.on account of said bonds.
“Said lands are to be turned over to said corporation at actual cost price, as had from the original owners, together with such reasonable commissions as have been agreed to be paid by said party of the first part, which said corporation shall pay.
“Said Wilson is to have the management of said corporation when formed, subject to the control of the board of directors, to be eleven in number, five named by Wilson, five by said first party, and one by the ten chosen.
“In consideration of all of which said Wilson is to have four hundred and forty thousand ($440,000) dollars of the stock of said corporation, the balance of the stock to belong to the parties of the first part.”

From the testimoney of the witnesses it is established beyond a doubt that under the agreements the whole capital stock of the proposed corporation should be paid in full, by turning over to it the lands for which the parties had options and contracts, and for services [337]

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

Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Mining Co., 20 S.W. 965, 113 Mo. 330, 1892 Mo. LEXIS 34 (Mo. 1892).

20 S.W. 965 (Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hess Warming & Ventilating Co. v. Burlington Grain Elevator Co.
217 S.W. 493 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
Mudge v. Black, Sheridan & Wilson
224 F. 919 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Pollitz v. Wabash Railroad
167 A.D. 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Webster v. Webster Refining Co. of Okmulgee
1912 OK 744 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Vogeler v. Punch
103 S.W. 1001 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
L. M. Rumsey Manufacturing Co. v. Kaime
73 S.W. 470 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Tennessee Ice Co. v. Raine
64 S.W. 29 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1901)
Van Cleve v. Berkey
44 S.W. 743 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Tintic Milling Co.
45 P. 200 (Utah Supreme Court, 1896)
Shepard v. Drake
61 Mo. App. 134 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
Foster v. Belcher's Sugar Refining Co.
24 S.W. 63 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)