Le Master v. Hailey

176 S.W. 818, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 585
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 10, 1915
DocketNo. 765.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 176 S.W. 818 (Le Master v. Hailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Le Master v. Hailey, 176 S.W. 818, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 585 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

HUFF, C. J.

This action was brought by defendant in error J. R. Hailey against the plaintiff in error, Mike C. Le Master, the Quanah National Bank, Citizens’ National Bank, Lone Star Life Insurance Company, and the First State Bank of Cottle County. This action was originally instituted by the defendant in error Hailey against the various parties to cancel a note and a certain contract to buy stock in the Lone Star Life Insurance Company, alleging a failure of consideration for the note and in the contract and fraudulent representations in obtaining the same.

The various parties answered, and, upon trial before the court without a jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of Hailey, canceling the note and the contract to purchase stock in the insurance company, and that the Citizens’ National Bank take nothing on its cross-petition over against Hailey, but rendered judgment in favor of the Citizens’ National Bank against Mike C. Le Master. for the amount of the note, with interest and attorneys’ fees.

The-State National Bank at Paducah was dismissed by Hailey, and judgment was also rendered against the Lone Star Insurance Company in favor of Hailey to cancel the note and contract above mentioned. Mike C. Le Master alone sued out a writ to this court, making Hailey, the Citizens’ National Bank of Quanah, and the Lone Star Insurance Company, and the First State Bank of Cottle County defendants. Le Master alone assigns error in this court.

The facts will sufficiently present the issues without a further statement of the pleadings. The court was authorized to find that Mike C. Le Master on the 25th day of March, 1910, approached Hailey to sell him stoek in the Lone Star Life Insurance Company; that he represented himself to be the agent of said company and authorized to sell such stock. He represented that he was selling stock in a corporation of $1,000,000 capital stock, and did not tell him at that time that the capital stock had been reduced to $100,000. The plaintiff Hailey also testified:

“I am the plaintiff in this case. I know the defendant Mike C. Le Master. I met Mr. Le Master in Paducah. Le Master represented to me that he was agent for the Lone Star Life Insurance Company, and that said company was being organized as a $1,000,000 corporation, and that all the stock had been sold, except a small amount he had. I relied on the statement of Mr. Le Master, in subscribing to the stock. I was to receive the stock from the company. Mr. Le Master told me the stock would be delivered about the 1st of October. I have never received the stock. I gave my note for $l-,000, and signed a subscription note for $1,500. I have never offered to pay the remaining $1,500, and the stock has never been transferred to me. There was no consideration for the $1,000 note I signed. At the time suit was filed, I knew I could not get the stock. Mr. Hawkins has a letter from the company, stating that Le Master was not the agent. I was ready at any time the stock was tendered. I am now ready to pay the $1,500 and take the stock, if I could get it according to contract. The Lone Star Life Insurance Company nor any one else ever notified me that all the capital stock was paid and my stock was ready. The Lone Star Life Insurance Company, Mike C. Le Master, L. H. Morgan & Co., or the First State Bank never tendered me any original stock in the $1,000,000 corporation, and no one ever tendered me any kind of stock until after the suit was brought. I never received any notice that the capital stock of the Lone Star Insurance Company would be reduced from $1,-000,000 to $100,000. The first knowledge I ever had that the company did not recognize Le Master as their agent was from Mr. Spradley. The first written knowledge was a letter to ■Whatley & Hawkins. The letter stated that my subscription was rejected.”

At that time, from the representation so made to Hailey by Le Master and his associate, he executed a note, made .payable to himself or order, and indorsed this note to Le Master, and also entered into a written contract wherein it is recited that L. H. *820 Morgan & Co., of Dallas, Tex, are promoting the organization of a life insurance company, which has been chartered under the laws of the state of Texas, under the name of the Lone Star Life Insurance Company, with an authorized capital stock of $1,000,-000, and a paid-up capital of at least $100,-000, and a net surplus of $50,000 paid up and free from promoting and organization expenses. He subscribed for 100 one-tenth shares, of a par value of $10 each, of the capital stock of said insurance company, reciting that he agreed with the company and with L. H. Morgan to pay the sum of $2,500 as follows: The sum of $1,500 to be paid in money or in securities, satisfactory to the insurance department of Texas, to said Lone Star Life Insurance Company, at any time after October 1, 1914, reciting that he would pay immediately upon notice from Morgan & Co. that the stock had been subscribed in good faith to amounts and rates netting the company at least $100,000 and at least $50,-000 of surplus, in the aggregate when paid. The remaining $1,000 he agreed to pay and does pay concurrently with this subscription to the said L. H. Morgan & Co. in consideration that their agreement theretofore recited and in lieu of any other further contribution to the expense of promoting and incorporating said company.

Le Master, the evidence shows, was acting for Morgan & Co. in; the sale of the stock. The facts show that in the early part of 1909 Morgan & Co. purported to be representing and had their contract with certain Dallas parties who were to organize and incorporate under the name specified. The facts from the officers of that company establish that Morgan & Co. proceeded to represent or to sell stock in the proposed organization company, and that the officers having learned through outside sources that they were charging an unreasonable sum for promotion, and having failed also to get the man whom they had selected as president to take the position, they decided to abandon the matter; and the evidence is sufficient to show that all the contracts so taken were destroyed, and the checks that had been paid were returned to the parties giving them, by the proposed incorporators of the insurance company, and also turned back the charter or organization up to that time to Morgan & Co. It further appears that after this Morgan & Co., during the year 1909, by, as the witnesses say. some bogus proceedings, secured the issuance of a charter for $1,000,000 by issuing stock to certain directors, and that this organization was illegal and invalid, but that Morgan & Co., still pretending to represent the insurance company, proceeded to sell its stock in the corporation, using the name of the present holders of the corporation stock and officers thereof. Again hearing of this fact, they called in Morgan & Co. before them on the 5th day of March, 1910, and directed them to sell no more stock, and objected to their name being used as it had been, destroying various contracts of subscription, and returning the checks of parties who had subscribed, and decided that at that meeting they would organize a corporation with $100,000 capital stock, with $50,000 surplus, and so notified Morgan & Co., and'that there was that amount already subscribed, and there was no more stock to sell. Le Master was at this meeting, and, while he states that he did not hear all that was said, the officers of the company state they think he was present and heard the declaration.

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1977
Long v. City Nat. Bank of Commerce
256 S.W. 1006 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Wrather v. Parks
227 S.W. 513 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 S.W. 818, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/le-master-v-hailey-texapp-1915.