Mason Smith & Co. v. Bierce

104 La. 96
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 15, 1900
DocketNo. 13,235
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 La. 96 (Mason Smith & Co. v. Bierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mason Smith & Co. v. Bierce, 104 La. 96 (La. 1900).

Opinion

[97]*97The opinion of the court was delivered by

Blanchard, J.

Plaintiffs are a commercial partnership carrying on the business of buying and selling cotton in New Orleans, with connections at Shreveport, Louisiana.

Defendants are promoters and builders of cotton compresses.

They proposed to plaintiffs to go in together and organize a corporation at Sheveport for the purpose of building^ establishing and operating a compress there.

Plaintiffs, thinking well of the proposition, suggested the advisability of taking into the enterprise the commercial partnership of C. H. Minge & Co., who were likewise buyers and sellers of cotton at New Orleans and Shreveport. This was assented to by defendants and Minge was brought in.

The three of them, Smith, Bierce and Minge, representing their respective firms, then laid their plans for the consummation of the object they had in view.

Columbus Bierce., one of defendants, was sent to Shreveport to initiate the movement for the construction of the press.

To ensure its successful operation after construction, it was necessary to interest in the project the commission merchants, factors and buyers at Shreveport who controlled the cotton trade of that city.

Smith, Bierce and Minge had started out with the idea and understanding that the control of the corporation should always remain in their hands, and to this end that the holdings of stock of the three should always constitute a majority of the shares.

To carry this out plaintiffs insist it was agreed and stipulated between the three that they, acting separately, should subscribe for enough of the stock which, in the aggregate of their holdings^ would amount to a majority of the shares, and thus, by acting together, the control of the press would.be retained in their hands. Furthermore, that to secure the permanency of this control, it was agreed and stipulated between the three that no one of them could or should dispose of his holdings of stock to any other person or persons without first offering the same to his associates and giving them the opportunity to buy.

Defendants deny this, contending that the extent of the obligation they assumed to plaintiffs, as an inducement for the latter to go into the enterprise with them, was that they (defendants) would agree to insure plaintiffs against loss.

[98]*98The agreement of these gentlemen among themselves that they (the three) should control a majority of the stock was easy to. make, but in practice it was found it would not work.

The shrewd business men of Shreveport who controlled the cotton output of that city, and whose participation was absolutely essential to the success of the compress, had no idea of permitting the New Orleans parties to dominate the affairs of the corporation. . It was alike their interest and intention that the. control should be at the Shreveport end of the line, and they announced to Columbus Bierce, the agent of the New Orleans parties, their purpose to have nothing to do with his scheme unless it was so arranged that a majority of the stock should be held in Shreveport. They stipulated that the local cotton men, who were in a position to aid the enterprise by sending cotton to the press, should be permitted to take stock, and that in addition to the number of shares so taken three of the largest cotton dealers, Hicks, Ardis and Taylor, should be given an option on 150 shares of the stock at par — the option to last twelve months. The stock covered by the option, added to that subscribed by the local dealers in, cotton, constituted a majority of the shares.

These requirements of the Shreveport parties had to be met, or else there would be a failure of the enterprise which Smith, Bierce and Minge were promoting.

Several other projects were, at the time, afoot looking to the construction of other compresses at Shreveport, or the enlargement of those already there, and the promoters of these were, too, soliciting the co-operation of Hicks, Ardis, Taylor and other local cotton interests and offering large inducements, and unless prompt action was taken by the representative of Smith, Bierce and Minge it was likely a deal would be made with some one of the rival concerns by which the support of the local interests would be lost to.the former.

In. this emergency Columbus Bierce urged upon his principals in New Orleans to come to Shreveport and assist him in the matter he had in hand. W. W. Bierce and Smith agreed to come and they were to meet at the train on an evening specified and go together to Shreveport. When W. W. Bierce reached the train Smith did not appear and Bierce went alone. On reaching Shreveport he found a telegram from Smith saying: “Could not get off last night, but will ratify and join in all you do.”

[99]*99Minge was already in Shreveport.

The same day Smith’s telegram was sent a conference was held at Shreveport between the two Bierces, Minge, Hicks, Ardis and Taylor and one or two other local cotton dealers.

At this conference the project of organization was discussed and certain general understandings were reached. W. W. Bierce returned to New Orleans, leaving Columbus Bierce at Shreveport to continue negotiations and bring the enterprise to a successful issue.

To do this he found it necessary to agree to all the demands of the Shreveport people, among others the option on the 150 shares of stock. This option, in writing, was given some several days following the holding of the conference, at which W. W. Bierce was present. It was executed by Columbus Bierce for and on behalf of the firm of W. W. Bierce only, and, if called, was to affect their'stock only.

By these means the support of the local cotton interests at Shreveport was secured, and a few days after the option was given the Columbia Compress and Warehouse Company was incorporated, officered entirely by Shreveport people, except that Smith, W. W. Bierce and Minge became members of the board of directors.

A site for the enterprise was secured, the buildings were erected and a compress, bought from Bierce, was put up. Everything was gotten in readiness for the approaching cotton season. ,

It seems that when Columbus Bierce, for the firm of W. W. Bierce, of which he was a member, gave the option on the 150 shares of stock, he did not apprise either Smith or Minge of the same.

This option was sure to be called if the compress proved a success by showing itself a money maker; it was equally certain not to be called if the reverse.

In November following, some seven months after the option was given, the success of the enterprise being assured, it was called. The Bierces were then in Chicago.

W. W. Bierce immediately wired plaintiffs at New Orleans as follows :

“Shreveport people have called option they held for our stock, given them at time of negotiation for press. Eeferring to our understanding that would not sell without consulting you, desire to say we are compelled to accept, but to do the correct thing by a friend as nearly as we know'kow, will take your stock if you care to dispose of it at a [100]*100dollar five. Desire to add that advices from there indicate it’s a money maker. Act exactly as your judgment dictates.”

To this plaintiffs replied:

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

Related

Pharr v. Gall
108 La. 307 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 La. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-smith-co-v-bierce-la-1900.