Grant v. . Cobre Grande Copper Co.

86 N.E. 34, 193 N.Y. 306, 1908 N.Y. LEXIS 648
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 10, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 N.E. 34 (Grant v. . Cobre Grande Copper Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grant v. . Cobre Grande Copper Co., 86 N.E. 34, 193 N.Y. 306, 1908 N.Y. LEXIS 648 (N.Y. 1908).

Opinion

Haight, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as stockholders of the defendant, the Cobre Grande Copper Company, an Arizona corporation, in behalf of themselves and all other stockholders of the corporation similarly situated, to have the defendant, the Cananea Consolidated Copper Company, a Mexican corporation, of which William C. Greene is the president, adjudged to be the holder in trust for the benefit of the Cobre Grande Copper Company of certain mines and mining properties situated in the republic of Mexico, and to compel such corporation and William C. Greene, its president, together with the Greene Consolidated Copper Company, a West Virginia corporation organized as a holding company, of which Greene is also president, to account to the Cobre Grande Copper Company and to the plaintiffs for income and proceeds arising from the work, use and occupation of such mines and mining properties.

The plaintiffs, upon affidavits showing facts in compliance with the provisions of sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure, procured an order directing the service of the summons upon the defendant Cobre Grande Copper Company by publication. A motion was made at the Special Term to set aside the order. The motion was denied, but upon appeal the Appellate Division reversed the order and *309 granted the motion. It then allowed an appeal to this court, certifying the following questions for our determination:

“1. Had the court jurisdiction upon the papers presented to grant an order .directing the service of the summons in this action upon the defendant the Cobre Grande Copper Company by publication.

“2. Was the court justified in vacating an order duly granted directing the service of a summons by publication upon the papers presented.”

Section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “ An action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of the state, or by a domestic corporation, for any cause of action.” Section 438, so far as now material, provides, An order directing the service of a summons upon a defendant, without the state, or by publication, may be made in either of the following cases: 1. Where the defendant to be served is a foreign corporation.” Section 439 provides that The order must be founded upon a verified complaint, showing a sufficient cause of action against the defendant to be served, and proof by affidavit of the additional facts required by the last section.” The reversal of the Appellate Division appears to have been based upon the latter provision of the Code and upon the ground that the complaint filed in this action does not state a sufficient cause of action against the Cobre Grande Copper Company. It is not our practice upon motions of this character to search the complaint with the care we would upon a demurrer; but inasmuch as the Appellate Division has held that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, it becomes our duty to now finally determine that question as to the point upon which that court based its decision.

The complaint, in substance, alleges that on or about the 26th day of November, 1898, the defendant William C. Greene contracted to convey to one George Mitchell certain mines and mining properties located in the Cananea mountains, in the republic of Mexico, in consideration of the sum of $12,500 in cash, and the further sums of $37,500 to be paid on the 26th day of November, 1899 ; $100,000 to be paid *310 the 26tli day of November, 1900, and $100,000 to be paid the 26th day of November, 1901. Greene at the time of the execution of this agreement executed deeds conveying such mining properties to Mitchell, and delivered the same in escrow to the Phoenix National Bank of Phoenix, Arizona, for delivery to Mitchell upon his complying with the terms of the agreement. Immediately upon the execution of the agreement Mitchell paid to Greene the sum of $12,500 in cash, as provided by the contract, and thereupon entered into possession of the mines and mining properties and worked and operated them in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and in conjunction with the defendant Greene, who had a license from the government of Mexico to operate mines in the “ Zona Libra ” or “ neutral zone ” of the republic of Mexico in which said mines were located, and began to work and develop the same and to erect machinery and other appliances for their proper operation. Thereupon Greene and Mitchell entered into a contract of copartnership under the name of Mitchell, Greene & Company for the development, improvement and working of the mines so conveyed by Greene to Mitchell, and they continued to work and develop the mines under the license to the defendant Greene until about the 25th day of April, 1899, at which time the defendant Cobre Grande Copper Company was incorporated, and thereupon Mitchell, in consideration of the transfer to him of 199,995 shares of the capital stock of the company, transferred to that corporation all his property, right, title and interest in said mines and mining properties held by him individually or in trust, acquired from Greene under the contract of November 26th, 1898. On the 22d day of July, 1899, the defendant Greene executed and delivered to the defendant Cobre Grande Company an agreement ratifying and confirming the agreement of November 26tli, 1898, and consented to the transfer by Mitchell of all said properties to the Cobre Grande Copper Company, and in addition thereto the defendant Greene also transferred to the Cobre Grande Copper Company other mines, mining claims, *311 and mining properties contiguous and adjoining the mines and mining properties conveyed to it by Mitchell, specifically describing them by name. But the defendant Greene continued to hold the titles to the said mines and mining properties in trust for and on account of the defendant Cobre Grande Copper Company, which being an Arizona corporation and not having a license from the republic of Mexico could not operate such mines. It also appears that on the 24th day of July, 1899, the defendant Greene conveyed to the defendant Cobre Grande Copper Company the Elisa mine, so called, located in the republic of Mexico and adjacent to the properties already conveyed, and accepted from the Cobre Grande Copper Company in full payment therefor four promissory notes of $25,000 each, aggregating the sum of $100,000, one payable July 24th, 1901, one on July 24th, 1902, one on July 24th, 1903, and the last on July 24th, 1904.

It further appears from the allegations of the complaint that one John II. Costello had become the president of the Cobre Grande Copper Company, J. Henry Wood, the secretary and treasurer, and Cornelius O’Keefe, its manager at the works and mines in Mexico; that Greene, Mitchell and one Treadwell, who were also directors in the corporation, had become dissatisfied with the management of the other officers, and that thereupon they had a conference with one J. Edward Addieks, of Delaware, and one Thomas W.

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

Related

Freeman v. Bean
243 A.D. 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Guffey v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.
67 Misc. 553 (New York Supreme Court, 1910)
Sullivan v. Murphy
120 N.Y.S. 55 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 N.E. 34, 193 N.Y. 306, 1908 N.Y. LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-cobre-grande-copper-co-ny-1908.