Martin v. Veana Food Co.

116 N.W. 978, 153 Mich. 282, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1024
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 27, 1908
DocketDocket No. 108
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 116 N.W. 978 (Martin v. Veana Food Co.) 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
Martin v. Veana Food Co., 116 N.W. 978, 153 Mich. 282, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1024 (Mich. 1908).

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

Plaintiff, on September 30, 1904, purchased from defendant association, at par, and paid for, $1,000 of its capital stock. Later, in December of the same year, he asked the association to take his stock and repay him his money.- This it did not do. His action is for damages for fraud and deceit. At the trial, plaintiff having closed his case, the court directed a verdict for defendants and judgment was entered on the verdict. The errors assigned make it necessary to determine whether, upon that view of the testimony, admitted or wrongly rejected, most favorable to plaintiff, there were questions which should have been submitted to the jury. The defendant association was organized March 10, 1902, with a capital of $500,000, in shares of one dollar each. Ten thousand dollars in cash was paid in by ten men, each of whom received $25,000 of stock. Of the $350,000 of stock [284]*284represented as paid, the remainder was first given, or paid, for a formula for making flaked goods. Of this, 68,000 shares, and perhaps a greater number, were after-wards turned in to the treasury. Various persons purchased stock at from 10 to 25 cents a share to the amount of $9,925. A factory was built at an expense of $47,000, money for this purpose being borrowed as was necessary. Manufacture of food was begun in May or June, 1903. On September 1, 1904, the association was overdrawn at the bank $10,820.71, and had a total indebtedness apparently of more than $34,000. Sales of stock were made, at par, to persons appointed district managers, to the amount of $51,325. Plaintiff’s connection with the association is best shown, though at the expense of considerable space, by the following recital and by documents, copies of which are given. He was employed at Aurora, Illinois, when he read in the Scientific American, in its issue of September 3, 1904, the following advertisement:

“ Reliable man wanted. A prominent cereal food company will contract with thoroughly reliable man for two years at $150 a month, together with commission and officb expenses. Highest references required. Address, ‘Auditor, Box 475, Bellevue, Mich.’ ”

Plaintiff wrote to the address and in reply received a letter from defendant company, inclosing a prospectus. The following is the letter:

“ J. R. Hall, Chairman, T. E. Robinson, Secretary
“F. M. Mulvaney, Treasurer. and Gen’l Man’gr.
“The Veana Food Co., Ltd.
“ Manufacturers of Veana Flaked Cereal Food.
“Bellevue, Mich., Sept. 13, 1904.
“L. H. Martin, Aurora, Ill.
Dear Sir: Your valued favor of recent date in reply to our advertisement has been received and filed; replying to same, we will endeavor to give you a brief, yet intelligent, idea of the situation, and then if interested we will take the matter up with you in detail. We are engaged in the manufacture of ‘Veana Flakes,’ — undoubtedly the acme of perfection in the cereal food line; there is a constantly increasing demand for our product, and in [285]*285order to afford better facilities for the handling of our goods we have decided to open several branch offices or distributing depots, and are now in search of competent men to take charge of same. We have recently adopted the co-operative system of doing business, and believe that our best employes, who hold responsible positions with us, should participate in the profits they help to make.
“Our company is incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan with an authorized capital of $500,000. At a recent meeting of the board it was decided to set aside $100,000 worth of stock, which is to be offered until Jan. 1, 1905, to our branch office managers in blocks of from 1,000 to 5,000 at par one dollar per share, which must be paid for in cash at the time of closing contract; we do this for the reason that our experience and that of other well-known concerns has proven beyond doubt that when a man has a financial interest in the company he represents, he puts forth a much better effort than were he merely an employé; therefore, in order to secure the best possible results from our branch office managers we deem it imperative that our trusted employes be financially interested with us.
“ Our proposition is not made through philanthropic motives, but is based upon purely business principles, and we court from those who are in a position to meet the requirements the closest investigation.
“ To put the entire proposition to you in a nutshell, we want as branch office managers men of ability to interest themselves with us financially, morally, and commercially, with a view of producing by concentrated effort the best results possible. The minimum investment that can be made by our branch office managers with us is $1,000 and the maximum $5,000, and with men of whom we approve we are prepared to close a two years’ contract at a salary of $1,800 per annum payable monthly, and ten per cent, commission on the business done through his territory except the first 300 cases per month, also fifty cents per case on all goods sold by his individual efforts, so that a hustler ought easily to make $5,000 per year. In addition he will receive the dividends accruing to his stock, which is fully paid and non-assessable; we will rent and furnish at our own expense, office quarters and warehouse facilities. We are thoroughly established, have a plant which stands alone in its class, both from architectural and mechanical engineering standpoints, which has cost about $100,000, will produce daily 600 cases of better food at a lower price [286]*286and consequently at a higher profit, than any factory yet built. Our entire proposition is co-operative, it being, as we have stated before, our firm belief that concentrated effort will bring results obtainable in no other way.
“The duties of a manager will be to secure, employ, and superintend a force of local and traveling salesmen to cover the territory which we assign him; in short, he is to have general control of, and supervision over, the business of his department, and to handle same as though it were his own; if a man has managerial ability and will follow our instructions he can readily adapt himself to our business. The credits and collections will all be handled from the home office so that a man can give his undivided attention to the sale of our goods.
“If you are interested from what we have told you of our proposition, you can secure from either Dun or Bradstreet our rating, also the very best banking references and other evidence of our standing, and we shall expect equally as good references from the man who wishes to take up and expects to fill so important a position as that of branch office manager of this company. If you feel that you are in a position to meet with all the requirements as outlined, and would like to go into the matter in full detail, write us — but do not simply ask for details— make your questions specific and right to the point.
“We shall also be pleased to hear from you at an early date, giving us your references and a brief statement relative to your experience, in order that we may ascertain if you are the man we are looking for.
“ Hoping that we may be favored with a prompt reply, we beg to remain,
“Yours respectfully,

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

Related

Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC v. Gibbs
71 F. App'x 454 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)
Connellan v. Himelhoch
506 F. Supp. 1290 (E.D. Michigan, 1981)
Mesh v. Citrin
300 N.W. 870 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1941)
Zochrison v. Redemption Gold Corp.
274 N.W. 536 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
Kefuss v. Whitley
189 N.W. 76 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 N.W. 978, 153 Mich. 282, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-veana-food-co-mich-1908.