Griffith v. Hasha

315 So. 2d 778, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 4413
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 24, 1975
DocketNo. 4993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 315 So. 2d 778 (Griffith v. Hasha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Griffith v. Hasha, 315 So. 2d 778, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 4413 (La. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

WATSON, Judge.

Plaintiff, Clinton B. Griffith, filed this lawsuit against defendants: Elmer E. Hasha (hereafter “Elmer”), plaintiff’s former brother-in-law, now deceased; Malvern M. Hasha (hereafter “Malvern”), plaintiff’s brother-in-law; and Jack M. Hayden (hereafter “Hayden”) a Texas patent attorney, asserting a 53% stock ownership in a Texas oil field service corporation known as Gator Hawk External Testers, Inc. (hereafter “Gator”). In the alternative, plaintiff asked recovery of compensation for services rendered the corporation; expenditures made on behalf of the corporation; and money advanced to the corporation; as well as damages for alleged breach of a stock ownership agreement. During the proceedings, the estate of Elmer was substituted as a party defendant; Griffith Rental Tools, Inc. (hereafter “G.R.T.”) was made an additional party plaintiff; and Gator was added as an additional party defendant.

We will not detail the history of the lawsuit as reflected in the extensive record. The matter was eventually tried on [779]*779the merits over a period of two weeks, and the trial court rendered judgment denying plaintiffs any stock ownership in Gator and also denying plaintiffs’ claim for an accounting and damages. Plaintiffs, Griffith and G.R.T., were awarded judgment against defendants for $10,600. A recon-ventional demand by defendants was denied.

Plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment of the trial court, contending that the trial court erred in finding that Griffith was not entitled to stock in Gator.

The trial court, in written reasons for judgment, made factual findings which in summary are as follows:

In June, 1969, Modern Drilling Tools and Supply Company, Inc. (hereafter “Modern”), which later became Gator, was in financial difficulty in connection with a loan from the First City National Bank of Houston (hereafter “F.C.N.B.”), which was personally guaranteed by Malvern, Thomas F. Soriero, Charles Richards, Guy Matthews and Hayden. Malvern retained John Feather, a Dallas attorney, who specialized in problems of financially troubled companies, in connection with this problem, and Feather said the corporation needed $150,000 to continue in business. Malvern telephoned Griffith, who was engaged in the rental tool business in Lafayette, Louisiana and who was a person of considerable experience in oil field service, and requested a meeting to discuss the situation. A meeting was held among Feather, Mal-vern, Elmer and Griffith on June 13, 1969.

As a result of this meeting, a letter was written by Malvern to Griffith on June 14, 1969, and Griffith signed a copy to signify his apparent accord. This letter states the arrangement between the parties to be as follows:

“1. Prior to your undertaking the commitments described in this letter, the Company shall have, at least, $38,000 in cash, for its working capital needs.
‘2. I shall immediately resign as President of the Company and you will be elected President and Chief Executive Officer. Both of our signatures shall be required on all Company bank accounts. You will not receive any compensation for your services as President and Chief Executive Officer, and I shall undertake a maximum sales and production effort in the testing business.
‘3. The Company shall no longer engage in the supply business.
‘4. The current fixed operating overhead of the Company shall be reduced so as to be no greater than $12,000 per month, including the fixed salaries of all personnel.
‘5. The Company shall undertake to arrange its bank financing so as to be able to pay the $150,000 in equipment 'indebtedness in accordance with the terms of the original $150,000 note evidencing this indebtedness. All existing accounts receivable shall be committed in full to the payment of the existing accounts receivable indebtedness and no further such indebtedness shall be incurred by the Company.
[6. The existing trade accounts payable of the Company shall be reduced in number to approximately 27 by the payment of approximately $30,000 by August 15, 1969. This payment will leave a balance of approximately $120,000 owed to the remaining 27 trade accounts payable. Each of these remaining trade accounts shall be offered an interest bearing promissory note of the Company payable, principal and interest, in 24 equal monthly payments, It should be understood that other arrangements may be required with these [780]*780remaining' 27 accounts payable, but in no event shall payment be com-mited at a rate which would pay such accounts than 12 month from August 15, 1969.
“7. You shall, and do hereby, commit and obligate yourself to purchase shares of common stock of the Company, to be issued by the company, up to $150,000 in value. The Company shall be entitled to call upon you to purchase such shares at any time after August 1, 1969 so that at no time shall the Company be unable to meet the scheduled repayment of its existing indebtness, as outlined in Paragraphs 5 and 6 above, after meeting its working capital needs out of the operations of the Company.
“8. Such part or all of the $150,000 in equity financing described above, as you are required to furnish, shall entitle you to be issued by the Company such number of shares of its common stock shall equal 51% of its then outstanding shares, if all of such $150,000 is required.
“9. It is understood that your comiitment [sic] outlined above is subject to the Company’s bank and trade accounts payable accepting the arrangements outlined in Paragraphs 5 and 6 above, and is further subject to the terms of the attached letter.” (Exhibit D-2)

On July 9, 1969, Griffith signed a $100,000 guarantee for Modern/Gator’s note at F.C.N.B. in consideration for which F.C.N.B. renewed the note.

Griffith never received any stock in Gator. He did become chief executive officer of the corporation but was removed from the board of directors at a shareholders’ meeting on January 15, 1971, and replaced as president at a board meeting the same day. This lawsuit resulted. Griffith admitted at trial that he never paid $150,000 for stock ownership in the corporation. Griffith claimed payment by transfer of assets to Gator, but the evidence was insufficient on this point. The trial court found that Griffith had not incurred the expenses claimed on behalf of the corporation and denied reimbursement therefor. Griffith’s accounting of his expenses was admittedly fabricated for trial purposes, and the trial court said that this cast doubt on his testimony as a whole. There was a claim for salaries paid by G. R.T. on behalf of Gator, but the trial court found that the employees of G.R.T. did no work for Gator with some minimal exceptions. Griffith’s claims for salaries due him were denied for lack of proof of a contract, the trial court noting that quantum meruit was not pleaded.

The trial court found that Griffith paid $10,600 to Gator and gave judgment to plaintiffs for that amount but stated that the evidence did not establish a right to any stock in the corporation as a result of this payment. This concludes our synopsis of the trial court's more detailed findings.

. The issue in this matter is whether plaintiff Griffith is entitled to stock ownership in Gator.

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

Related

McNery v. Signs Horizon, Inc.
520 So. 2d 953 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)
Dardeau v. Fontenot
326 So. 2d 521 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1976)
Griffith v. Hasha
320 So. 2d 205 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
315 So. 2d 778, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 4413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-hasha-lactapp-1975.