Goldman v. O'Hara

130 N.W. 352, 164 Mich. 612, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 740
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 13, 1911
DocketDocket No. 60
StatusPublished

This text of 130 N.W. 352 (Goldman v. O'Hara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goldman v. O'Hara, 130 N.W. 352, 164 Mich. 612, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 740 (Mich. 1911).

Opinion

Stone, J.

This is a suit in equity for an accounting [613]*613brought by complainant against Charles J. O’Hara and the C. C. Wormer Machinery Company growing out of an alleged special verbal partnership transaction entered into about March 17, 1906, involving the purchase and sale of the plant of the Auto Brass & Aluminum Company of Flint, a bankrupt.

The complainant seeks to charge the defendant O’Hara in the sum of $2,158.88 (being $1,886.37 and interest), that being a one-half interest in the profits, as complainant claims, of the alleged partnership transaction entered into and completed between the said complainant and defendant O’Hara. The complainant also seeks to charge the defendant C. C. Wormer Machinery Company, as a constructive trustee of the said amount; it having been the recipient of that amount of money out of the proceeds of the partnership transaction, without his knowledge or consent. The defendant O’Hara claims that the agreement was to prorate the profits on the basis of the amount of the investment of each.

It appears that on March 1, 1906, the Auto Brass & Aluminum Company was adjudged a bankrupt, and the complainant was a creditor in the sum of $1,272. Among the assets of said bankrupt company was certain machinery purchased on contracts from the C. C. Wormer Machinery Company, in which the vendor reserved the title, until paid for, and upon which contracts there had been paid $3,507.72, leaving a balance due at the time of the adjudication in bankruptcy of $6,266.27 of principal. The said Wormer Company also proved up a claim against the bankrupt company of $4,970.95 for rental of the said machinery during the period of default in payments. However, the Wormer Company had not declared the contracts in default, and had not demanded the return of the machinery. Prior to the adjudication, and about February 28, 1906, there, had been a meeting oi the creditors of the Auto Brass & Aluminum Company at Flint, and Clarkson C. Wormer, president of the Wormer Company, attended that meeting. While in [614]*614Flint Mr. Wormer gave an option on the Wormer Company interest, under the said contracts, to Mr. Goff of the Buick Company, to take over the same at the face of the indebtedness aforesaid ($6,266.27), and an additional $100 to cover expenses and attorney’s fees. The complainant testified that the next day after Mr. Wormer’s return from Flint, he (Wormer) offered to sell the Wormer Machinery Company’s contract rights for $6,000. This is virtually denied by Mr. Wormer in his testimony. During the time the option to Mr. Goff was in force, and in the early part of March, defendant O’Hara, who was treasurer of the said Wormer Company, claims to have made an offer to Mr. Wormer to give the Wormer Company the face value of its said contracts, pay attorney’s fees, and a bonus of $1,500 for the company’s rights under the contracts. Mr. Goff failed to exercise his option, and later, at a meeting of the directors of the Wormer Company held some time between the middle of March and the 1st of April, 1906, the offer of O’Hara was accepted. No record of this meeting was kept, and no writing of any kind passed between the parties until June 18th, when the Wormer Company assigned its contracts to O’Hara. No time was fixed for payment to the Wormer Company by O’Hara.

On March 17, 1906, at Flint, the trustee in bankruptcy held a sale of the plant of the Auto Brass & Aluminum Company, subject to the contract rights of the Wormer Company. Mr. O’Hara, representing the Wormer Company, and also the complainant, were present at the sale.

It is the claim of the complainant, that, just previous to the time of the sale, he and O’Hara entered into their verbal partnership arrangement to bid in the plant, buy up the claims of one or two of the largest creditors, and then hold the plant intact until a suitable purchaser could be found, and it could be sold to advantage; that O’Hara represented that he could arrange with the Wormer Company for its contracts; and that it was agreed between O’Hara and complainant that they should jointly bid in [615]*615the plant, each contributing one-half of the purchase price, but the bid was to be made in O’Hara’s individual name; that it was understood that the proceeds of the sale by the partnership, when finally made, should be used, first, to pay the claims of the complainant and of the Wormer Company in full, at their face value — each partner was to receive back his share of the purchase price advanced, and the balance, after deducting expenses, was to be divided between the two parties as profit; that defendant O’Hara did not communicate to complainant that he, O’Hara, had agreed to give the Wormer Company a bonus of $1,500, and to pay its attorney’s fees. Complainant further claims that he understood that the Wormer Company was to receive only the face value of its claim under its contracts, being the amount remaining unpaid thereon. O’Hara bid in the plant for $4,200, and on March 22d, complainant drew a check for his half of the purchase price.

This sale of March 17th was enjoined by Judge Swan of the United States district court, on the application of the Wormer Company, which company asserted the right to detach, take down, and entirely remove all the machinery, appliances, and materials mentioned in the contracts above referred to. Judge Swan finally modified the original order, and ordered the sale to take place, subject to the contract rights of the Wormer Company, from which order the Wormer Company appealed to the circuit court of appeals. The. petition to the circuit court of appeals was sworn to by Clarkson C. Wormer, president, on March 29, 1906, and alleges error on the part of Judge Swan in refusing to permit the Wormer Company to repossess itself of the machinery and remove the same from the plant of the bankrupt. The second sale was held on March 30, 1906, at which the complainant hid in the plant in his own name, but under the partnership arrangement agreed upon at the former sale, whatever that may have been. The purchase price of $4,175 [616]*616was paid by complainant to the trustee of the bankrupt by two checks.

On April 5th following, complainant received from defendant O’Hara, a Wormer Company note for $1,000, and a check for $1,087.50, being one-half of the said purchase price last mentioned. On April 6th complainant bought in the claim of the Great Western Smelting & Refining Works against the bankrupt company for $1,700. He received from defendant O’Hara, as his half of the purchase price of this claim, a Wormer Company note for $850, payable July 7, 1906. On May 27, 1906, complainant executed a bill of sale of the plant to the defendant O’Hara, who was assembling title for convenience of transfer. From time to time parts of the material and stock were sold, and on June 18th the Wormer Company formally assigned its contracts to defendant O’Hara, which assignment completed his title, and he executed a bill of sale for the entire plant, including the Wormer Company machinery, to C. H. Booth for the Peerless Heater & Valve Company for $18,000. This sale was brought about through the efforts of complainant. A part of the $18,000 was settled by notes signed by Booth and the Peerless Company, and indorsed by complainant, for the reason that O’Hara and the Wormer Company refused to accept the Booth notes, unless indorsed by complainant.

A few days thereafter, the complainant endeavored to have an accounting with defendant O’Hara in regard to the partnership profits.

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

Related

Northrup v. McGill
27 Mich. 234 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 N.W. 352, 164 Mich. 612, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-ohara-mich-1911.