McKnight v. Drake

143 Ill. App. 10, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 2
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedJune 11, 1908
StatusPublished

This text of 143 Ill. App. 10 (McKnight v. Drake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKnight v. Drake, 143 Ill. App. 10, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 2 (Ill. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

The original bill of complaint of J. C. McKnight, appellee herein, alleges that in the year 1900 C. W. Brown, Joseph Stocks, A. B. Pifer, S. P. Drake, L. G-. Hostetler and appellee entered into a partnership under the firm name of Stocks, Pifer & Co., for the purpose of prospecting for coal and obtaining coal leases in the vicinity of Lovington; that Stocks and Pifer had each a one-fourth interest in said partnership and Hostetler, Drake, Brown and appellee each a one-eighth interest therein; that the firm sank a prospect shaft on land belonging to Hostetler and located a stratum of coal nine feet in thickness, and thereafter secured the right hy lease to mine coal in about five thousand acres of land; that one Byron Cheever owned a tract of land adjacent to the village of Lovington containing 104.65 acres, which land said Cheever refused to lease or sell to the firm; that thereafter, on February 21,1901, said Cheever was induced to sell and convey said land to one W. C. Trabue for $10,500 and that said Trabue paid for said land by giving his check on the Hardware Bank of Lovington, wliich bank was owned by Drake & Hostétler ; that although the deed to the land was taken in the name of Trabue the land was in fact purchased for the firm of Stocks, Pifer & Co., who paid the consideration therefor; that appellee offered to pay to the firm the sum of $1,312.50 as his share of the purchase price of the land, but was assured by Stocks, Pifer, Drake and Hostetler, that he could pay his proportion at a later date and that his interest in the said land and partnership would remain the same; that said Trabue thereafter conveyed said land to Stocks, Pifer, Drake and Hostetler. The bill further alleges that in September, 1901, said partnership organized a corporation known as the Moultrie County Coal Company, for the purpose of taking over the assets of the partnership and operating a coal mine; that the capital stock of said corporation was fixed at $150,000; that thereafter, on May 15, 1902, the capital stock of said corporation was decreased to $80,000 divided into 800 shares of the par value of $100 each, and the partnership assets of the firm of Stocks, Pifer & Co. were then sold, assigned and transferred to said corporation for $40,000 of its paid up stock, which paid up stock was then ordered to be issued to the several members of the partnership as follows: Pifer ninety shares, Stocks ninety-four shares, Hostetler ninety-two shares, Drake sixty-seven shares, Brown twenty-seven shares, and appellee twenty-seven' shares, making a total of 400 shares, and that the remaining shares were to be retainéd as treasury stock, and the same was afterward placed on the market and sold at par; that in said transfer of the assets of said firm-to said corporation, the tract of land purchased from Cheever was •valued at $16,000, and the tract of land owned by Hostetler, upon which the prospect shaft was sunk, was valued at $2,500. The bill further alleges that appellee objected to and protested against the division of the 400 shares of stock as above set forth for the reason that said division was not equitable; that appellee was entitled to fifty shares of said stock, except that for the land owned by Hostetler, which was turned into the corporation at $2,500, appellee agreed to contribute his one-eighth part thereof or $312.50, which would have entitled appellee’ to forty-six and seven-eighths shares, subject to the payment by him of $1,312.50, being one-eighth of the purchase price of the Cheever tract of land; that there was a profit in the sale of the Cheever tract of land to the corporation of $5,500, appellee’s share of which profit is $687.50; that appellee' is advised that the Moultrie County Coal Company has entered into an agreement to transfer all of its property to a corporation known as the Lovington Coal Mining Company. The. bill prays for an accounting as to the business of the co-partnership, and that shares of the value of $687.50 of the capital stock of the Moultrie County Coal Company may be declared to be due appellee from his co-partners, Hostetler, Stocks, Pifer and Drake and said corporation, or in case the said shares of stock are sold that that amount of money be decreed to be paid appellee. In his amended bill appellee alleges that since the filing of his original bill the Moultrie County Coal Company has sold and transferred all of its property to Cyrus A. Potts and Charles A. Clark, who in turn conveyed the same to the Lovington Coal Mining Company; that said transfers were made while appellee’s rights and claims were lis pendens and that the last named corporation has placed a trust deed for the sum of $500,000 upon all of the property formerly owned by the co-partnership. The amended bill prays additional relief which it is not necessary to recite in detail. After answers filed by the several defendants and the filing by appellee of his replications thereto, the cause was referred to the master in chancery and was heard by the chancellor upon the proofs reported by the master. The court found that the tract of land sold by Cheever to Trabue was purchased for the partnership and was sold to the Moultrie County Coal Company at a profit of $5,000, and that appellee should have paid one-eighth part of the purchase money therefor and that he offered to do so; that appellee is entitled to one-eighth part of the profits of the sale of said land to said corporation, being $687.50, and that Hostetler, Drake, Stocks and Pifer, appropriated said profit to their own use and should account to appellee therefor; that appellee should be charged with interest on one-eighth of the purchase price of said land from February 27, 1901, to May 17,1902, at the rate of five per cent, and also with $100 paid by. Byron Cheever to appellee, as commission for effecting the sale, and that he should be credited with $50, being one-eighth of the amount deducted from the purchase price of the land by reason of the payment of rent therefor in advance to said Cheever; that the Moultrie County Coal Company set apart twenty-seven shares of its capital stock for appellee, one of which shares of stock was transferred by appellee to appellant Hostetler, and that the remaining twenty-six shares of stock are undisposed of and appellee had refused to accept the same; that there was no equity in appellee’s amended bill touching the relief therein prayed against the Moultrie County Coal Company, the Lovington Coal Mining Company, Cyrus A. Potts, Charles A. Clark and Alexis B. Montgomery, trustees, and the same should be dismissed as to said parties. The decree directs that Pifer, Stocks, Hostetler and Drake account to appellee for his one-eighth of the profits derived from the sale of the Cheever land, and fixes the amount due to appellee upon such accounting at $687.31 and said Pifer, Stocks, Hostetler and Drake were adjudged to pay one-half of the cost of the proceeding’, except the sheriff’s costs. From this decree Joseph Stocks, L. G-. Hostetler and S. P. Drake have appealed to this court.

The hill is framed upon the theory that, the purchase by Stocks, Pifer, Drake and Hostetler of the Cheever tract of land under the circumstances alleged created a. resulting trust in favor of the partnership of Stocks, Pifer & Co., and it is insisted on behalf of appellee McKnight that the evidence in the record supports such theory. . '

It is well established that in order to create a resulting trust in land in favor of a partnership, the land must have been purchased with partnership funds and used for partnership purposes (Robinson Bank v. Miller, 153 Ill.

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

Related

Furber v. Page
32 N.E. 444 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Mayfield v. Forsyth
45 N.E. 403 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
Brennaman v. Schell
72 N.E. 412 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 Ill. App. 10, 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-v-drake-illappct-1908.