Gates v. Paul

107 N.W. 492, 127 Wis. 628, 1906 Wisc. LEXIS 207
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 20, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 N.W. 492 (Gates v. Paul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gates v. Paul, 107 N.W. 492, 127 Wis. 628, 1906 Wisc. LEXIS 207 (Wis. 1906).

Opinion

Hodge, J.

Tbe interlocutory judgment in this case substantially settled all tbe rights of tbe parties except those expressly reserved for further-decision, in this respect according with tbe provisions of sec. 2883, Stats. 1898, providing that an interlocutory judgment may be made disposing of all issues covered by the’ finding or decision and reserving further questions until tbe report, verdict, or subsequent finding. That judgment having been affirmed by this court with certain modifications is conclusive, except as to tbe matters reserved. It decided that defendant held one sixth of tbe A and D lands in trust for the plaintiff; that tbe plaintiff is chargeable with certain specific amounts and with tbe taxes paid by tbe defendant on account of such one-sixth interest and any other necessary expenses paid by tbe defendant on account thereof, less any income derived therefrom; and that tbe plaintiff is entitled to receive from tbe defendant such proportion of tbe shares of tbe East Coast Lumber Company as are fairly and equitably represented by plaintiff’s one-sixth interest in the lands described in Exhibit A, also by bis one-sixth interest in tbe lands described in Exhibit D, if tbe same shall be found to have been conveyed to that corporation. There were, therefore, left open for future consideration the questions of tbe amount of taxes and other expenses paid by the defendant, conveyance of tbe plaintiff’s one-sixth interest in tbe D lands to tbe corporation, and tbe amount of capital [632]*632stock issued by tbe corporation by reason of the receipt by it of the plaintiff’s interest in the lands. This last question became confined to the one-sixth interest in the A lands upon its appearing, as it does without dispute, that the one-sixth interest in the D lands has never been conveyed away by defendant, and can be reconveyed to plaintiff. The application to amend the answer by setting up: (1) the failure of title to the D lands; and (2) misrepresentation as to the quality of the A lands, was properly denied, for the reason that no such amendments were necessary. Such questions, if they bore in any way upon the equitable rights of the plaintiff to receive any sums from the defendant, were open under the pleadings as they already existed, and evidence was admissible upon them just as it was admissible upon the question of plaintiff’s misrepresentation as to the amount paid for the D lands upon which this court passed in correction and modification of the trial court’s interlocutory judgment. As stated in our former opinion, any evidence which the defendant considered necessary by reason of the amendment to plaintiff’s cause of action, he had ample opportunity to apply to the trial court for leave to introduce before that judgment, and, doubtless, so far as any such evidence bore upon the issues submitted to the referee, it was admissible without any amendment.

Among the issues so submitted by reference, the. only one of special importance upon this appeal is the amount of stock issued by the corporation fairly and equitably represented by plaintiff’s one-sixth interest in the A lands. This, of course, depends on what was the transaction in fact had between the defendant and his associates, Withee and Gile, with reference to the organization of the corporation and the consideration for which the stock was issued by it. As preliminary to that transaction, which took place in December, 1896, and January, 1897, it must be borne in mind that for some two years or more Mr. PomI, in this association, had been making large investments in timber lands in Florida and Georgia, involv[633]*633ing extended negotiations for, and examinations of, numerous different tracts, as to some of which the negotiations resulted in purchase either of the whole title or of some interest therein, and as to others fell through without result, and, in some cases, lands for which money had been spent were apparently deemed not worth conveying to the company. In this situation it was first proposed that certain tracts of land, to which the parties had contributed in greater or less proportion, and were understood between themselves to have interests accordingly, should be turned over to the corporation at a certain specified price per acre, payable in stock at par, and that money enough should be further contributed by the several partners to supply the treasury for the prospective erection of mill, railroad, etc., for which the balance of the stock should be issued at par. On this basis the lands were to represent about $384,000 and additional money to the amount of about $116,000 was to be contributed. It is claimed by the defendant that this method was abandoned and that, in lieu thereof, it was decided to treat the moneys which had already been contributed by the several members to the enterprise as above described and the moneys which they were able or ready to contribute at the time of the forming of the corporation on the same basis, and to issue therefor substantially the whole stock of the corporation, and that it was ascertained by accounting among them that they had already contributed about $234,000, and agreed to supply in cash to the treasury about $83,000 more. Thereupon they agreed to issue stock at the percentage of 1.489 dollars par value for each dollar so contributed. The amounts were slightly varied, so that this resulted in an issue of stock of 4,271 shares, leaving 279 shares unissued. Of this 3,350 were issued to the defendant John Paul 848 to Withee, and 523 to Grile. The referee held that the adoption of the latter plan was established by the evidence and that, therefore, it must be held that so much stock was issued by the corporation on account of the A lands [634]*634as equaled 1.489 dollars of the money which, was shown to have been invested in those lands up to the time of the organization of the corporation. On exception to the referee’s report and findings, the court held that the evidence established that the Exhibit A lands were transferred to the corporation at an agreed price of $1.25 per acre, as in accordance with the original scheme above mentioned, and held that stock at this price for one sixth of the A lands belonged to plaintiff together with one sixth of a quantity of stock which he held to have been issued without any consideration whatever, because certain lands ostensibly involved in the capitalization had never been conveyed to the corporation, and because he held the evidence insufficient to establish the payment of any money into the treasury of the corporation by the defendant Paul.

It will hardly be justifiable to attempt a review of the large amount of evidence, oral and documentary, upon which these findings were based. We have examined it with care, and have reached the conclusion that the general plan of incorporation and stock issued as found by the referee is supported by a preponderance of such evidence. It may, however, be advisable to mention a few of the more salient circumstances which we deem persuasive. The two theories above outlined, namely, that of the issue of stock in proportion to the money contribution to the pool both before and at the organization of the corporation, which we shall designate as the referee’s theory, and that of the issue of stock at a certain fixed price per acre, which may be referred to as the court’s theory, are each supported by some parol testimony. The defendant did testify on two occasions that the A lands were put into the corporation for stock at $1.25 an acre, but he modified this by saying that was the price at which they were carried in the inventory and that the details of the bargain and issue of stock were arranged by his son and not by him.

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

Related

Hebel v. State
210 N.W.2d 695 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1973)
Security State Bank v. Monona Golf Club
252 N.W. 287 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 N.W. 492, 127 Wis. 628, 1906 Wisc. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gates-v-paul-wis-1906.