Johnson v. United Railways Co.

219 S.W. 38, 281 Mo. 90, 1920 Mo. LEXIS 6
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 16, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 219 S.W. 38 (Johnson v. United Railways Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. United Railways Co., 219 S.W. 38, 281 Mo. 90, 1920 Mo. LEXIS 6 (Mo. 1920).

Opinions

CRAMER, Special Judge.

Plaintiff brings this suit in equity against the United Railways 'Company of St. Louis and the Transit Company of St. Louis as assignee of certain judgments for personal injuries recovered by various parties against the Transit Company while it *96 was operating the street car lines in the City of St. Louis under a lease from the United Railways Company.

The ground on which he seeks to hold the United Railways Company liable appears from the following allegations of the petitipn:

“Plaintiff further states that on or about the 31st day of October, 1904, the entire property and assets of the said St. Louis Transit Company, including all the improvements and betterments made by it, were transferred to the said United Railways Company of St. Louis, which immediately assumed control and is now injpossession thereof, both said companies being at the time of said transfer under one and the same management.

“And plaintiff further states that the object and purpose of said United Railways Company of St. Louis was to absorb said St. Louis Transit Company, by acquiring its assets and succeeding to its business, and to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of the St. Louis Transit Company,. and pursuant to that purpose, said St. Louis Transit Company was merged in the defendant United Railways Company of St. Louis; that on or about the 31st day of October, 1904, the defendant United Railways Company of St. Louis did receive, absorb and take over, without paying any fair and just consideration therefor, all the assets and property of said St. Louis Transit Company, including its business and good will, and said aforesaid leasehold, and also the sum of $614,-015.25' in cash, and thereafter carried on and is now carrying- on and operating said street car system and the business as successor to the St. Louis Transit Company, and plaintiff is informed and upon information and belief states, that upon receiving said assets and in consideration thereof, the said defendant United Railways Company of St. Louis, assumed and agreed and became liable to pay all liabilities of the said St. Louis Transit Company; and plaintiff is advised that in the absence of any agreement, defendant will, by operation of law, upon the facts aforesaid, be held to have assumed all such liabilities.

*97 “Plaintiff is furthermore advised that the assets and property of said St. Louis Transit Company were, at the time they passed into • the hands of defendant aforesaid, a trust fund, for the payment of all debts and liabilities of the St. Louis Transit Company, and when received and taken by defendant, were charged with such liability. And plaintiff says that defendant has appropriated to its own use the said assets and property of the value aforesaid, to-wit, $614,015.25 in cash, and a great amount of property and assets heretofore mentioned. the exact value of which plaintiff is unable to state, hut not less than, to-wit, $20',000,000 in value.

“And plaintiff further states that the said transfer of the said assets of said St. Louis Transit Company was fraudulent and was conceived and 'carried out with intent to dispose of all the assets of the St. Louis Transit Company to the use and benefit of the said United Railwavs Company and the stockholders of St. Louis Transit Company and parties unknown to complainant conspiring with them in order to hinder, delay, defeat and defraud the creditors of said St. Louis Transit Company, and in_ order to assist the St. Louis Transit Company, its officers and stockholders in concealing the assets of said St. Louis Transit Company, and to hinder, delay, defeat and defraud the creditors of said St. Louis Transit Company, and in order to procure the votes of the stockholders of said St. Louis Transit Company to ratify an agreement to surrender the aforesaid leasehold to it, and to transfer a great part of the assets of said St. Louis Transit Company to said. United Railways Company and with intent to hinder delay, defeat and defraud the creditors of said St. Louis Transit Company, said United Railways Company on or about the month of October, 1904, transferred to stockholders of the said St. Louis Transit Company, its own stock of the market value of to-wit, $1,605,000 and thereby joined in putting that .amount of assets which should have gone into the treasury of said *98 St. Louis Transit Company, out of the reach of creditors of said St. Louis Transit Company, and where executions could not be levied upon the same, and thereby hindered, delayed, defeated and defrauded the creditors of said St. Louis Transit Company, whereby by reason of its participation in said fraudulent proceedings the said United Railways Company failed to get any valid title to the said assets of said St. Louis Transit Company received by it -from said company, and became liable to the creditors of said St. Louis Transit Company, for the full amount of the same which have been received, held and used by it. ’ ’

On the 1 Oth day of March, 1898, the Central Traction Company of St. Louis was incorporated with a capital stock of $100,000,which was subsequently increased to $40,000,000, and on July 10, 1899, its name was changed from “Central Traction Company” to United Railways Company of St. Louis.”

The St. Louis Transit Company was incorporated on March 2, 1899, with a capital stock of $3000, later increased to $20,000,000.

Each of these companies had a board of directors of eleven members, consisting, with one or two exceptions, of the same persons, and the officers of both were the same. Murray Carleton becaine president of the United Railways Company in 1899, and of the Transit Company in April, 1901, and continued as such until March, 1905. According to his evidence “the controlling interest in these two companies was vested in the men that represented themiin an official way.”

Prior to the 30th day of September, 1899, the United Railways Company had acquired control of all of the street car lines in'the City of St. Louis, excepting one; comprising about two hundred and ninety-three miles of track. The Transit Company had no property. On the 30th day of September, 1899, the following ^contract of lease was entered into between the two companies:

*99 CONTRACT OF LEASE BETWEEN UNITED RAILWAYS OF ST. LOUIS AND ST. LOUIS TRANSIT COMPANY.
“This Agreement, made and entered into between the United Railway Company of St. Louis, hereinafter called ‘United Railways,’ a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, party of the first part, and the St. Louis Transit Company, hereinafter called ‘Transit Company,’ also a corporation duly' organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, party of the second part, witnesseth that
“Whereas, ‘United Railways’ is the owner of several lines of railway in the city and county of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and of certain bonds and stocks more specifically described in a certain deed of trust to the St. Louis Trust Company bearing date September 20, A. D., 1899, and is willing to lease all of its said lines of railway lying and being situate in the city and county of- St.

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

Related

Pazdernik v. Stemler
804 S.W.2d 789 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Merrick v. Stephens
337 S.W.2d 713 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1960)
Boesel v. Perry
268 S.W.2d 68 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1954)
Hutson v. Long Bell Lumber Co.
1 F. Supp. 468 (W.D. Missouri, 1932)
Hoyt v. Hampe
214 N.W. 718 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Jackman v. St. Louis Hannibal Railroad Co.
263 S.W. 230 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 S.W. 38, 281 Mo. 90, 1920 Mo. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-railways-co-mo-1920.