Moerschel v. O'Bannon

246 F. 887, 159 C.C.A. 159, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1435
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 8, 1917
DocketNo. 4896
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 F. 887 (Moerschel v. O'Bannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moerschel v. O'Bannon, 246 F. 887, 159 C.C.A. 159, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1435 (8th Cir. 1917).

Opinion

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The Schultz Dry Goods, Carpet & Ready-to-Wear Company was adjudged a bankrupt on March 20, 1916. Its stockholders were Frank J. Rinhoff, its president, who owned 238 shares, Emma C. Rinhoff, his wife, who owned 1 share, and Ernest C. Moerschel, his brother-in-law, who owned 1 share. The corporation was organized on May 23, 1913, when it succeeded to the business, assets, and liabilities of the Schultz Dry Goods & Carpet Company, a corporation, whose stock was the same in amount and was held by the same stockholders in the same quantities as was the stock of the new company. On February 27, 1909, the old company was a prosperous mercantile concern, all whose stock, except 2 shares, was held by H. E. Schultz, Sr., its president, H. E. Schultz, Jr., its vice president, and George P. Walker, its secretary and treasurer, and on that day they and Frank J. Rinhoff agreed in writing that they should sell and convey to him all the stock of the corporation for $55,000, $3,000 of which they acknowledged in the writing that Rinhoff had then paid, $32,000 of which was to be paid by Rinhoff by February 27, 1909, and for the remainder of the purchase .price Rinhoff was to make his two promissory notes payable to H. E. Schultz, Sr., for $10,000 each, due in one and two years, respectively, signed by Jacob F. Moerschel surety thereon. That contract was performed. Rinhoff had no property. Jacob F. Moerschel was his father-in-law. Moerschel furnished the $3,000 that w£.s paid when the contract was made. Rinhoff and Moerschel borrowed of hanks upon their promissory notes the $32,000, and Rin-hoff paid that amount over to the Messrs. Schultz, and he gave to H. E. Schultz, Sr., his two $10,000 notes signed by Jacob F. Moer-schel as surety. When the various notes signed by Rinhoff and Moerschel were collected Moerschel paid them, and Rinhoff gave to Moerschel his individual notes for the amounts paid aggregating $50,000. Before these notes were given, the $3,000 Moerschel advanced when the contract was madé and $2,000 that was indorsed on one of the notes to the' bank had been paid out of the assets of the corporation. The notes aggregating the $50,000 were given at various dates between February 27, 1910, and. February 12; 1913. Moerschel still holds all of these notes, except one for $8,000, which he gave to his daughter, Mrs. Rinhoff, and for that note Rinhoff substituted in February, 1915, the note of the old corporation made by himself as president. Mrs. Rinhoff presented a claim against the new corporation for $8,000, based on this note, and ME Moerschel presented a claim for $42,000 and interest, founded on the other notes given to him by Rinhoff. The court below disallowed these claims, aand Moerschel and Mrs. Rinhoff have appealed.

Counsel for the appellants argue that these claims should have been allowed: (1) Because Moerschel loaned his money to and gave his security for the old corporation, and not to or for Rinhoff; (2) because the old corporation and the new corporation assumed and agreed to pay [889]*889the debts to Mrs. Linhoff and Moerschel, evidenced by these notes; and (3) because, if the claims may not be allowed in full, Moerschel’s claim for at least $12,404.40, which was paid by the Messrs. Schultz to discharge the debts of the old corporation soon after the $32,000 of the purchase price of the stock was paid over to the Messrs. Schultz by-Linhoff, should be allowed. In support of this contention they call attention to these facts:

Linhoff controlled and managed the corporations after his purchase of the stock without let or hindrance by the other stockholders or by the boards of directors. Moerschel did not know of the written contract of purchase of the stock, he deemed the property and business of the Schultz store security for his obligations and loans, and recorded the notes he took of Linhoff on sheets in his account book under the head “Schultz Dry Goods & Carpet Co., Fr. J. Linhoff.” ■ Linhoff testified that he did not buy the shares, but that he bought the stock of goods, and the vendors turned over the shares of stock; that, as Moerschel took up the notes which he and Moerschel had given he gave Moerschel notes of the old corporation, signed by himself as president; that the Schultz Dry Goods & Carpet Company was bought with Moerschel’s money; and that the money was not loaned to him personally. The bookkeeper of the new corporation testified that she copied from an old sheet that she found folded in one of the account books of the corporations a memorandum of the notes given by Lin-hoff to Moerschel, their dates, amounts, and the dates when the interest came due, and the copy she made was received in evidence. Lin-hoff paid the interest on all these notes until a short time before the adjudication of bankruptcy out of the assets of the corporation with its checks signed by himself.

But this, and other less material evidence tending to prove that Moerschel made his loan to and signed as surety on Linhoff s notes for the corporation, and not to and for Linhoff, cannot prevail over these indisputable facts. When first asked what he did at the time his son-in-law, Linhoff, became interested in the Schultz store in 1909 in the way of helping him out Moerschel answered:

“He came up here and wanted to go in business, and he bought it, and I promised to help him out, and I had to stick to it; he loaned some money from the banks, and I went security. 1 signed the notes.”

When the $3,000 was paid, when the notes to the banks for the $32,-000 were made and the money borrowed on them was paid over to Mr. Schultz, Sr., and when the two $10,000 notes were made and delivered in March, 1909, the board of directors and officers of the corporation were, and until August 7, 1909, they continued to be the Messrs. Schultz. They were the only persons who could incur the liability of the corporation for borrowed money or for the sureties for the company, and they did not do so. The contract which evidenced the transaction which induced the payment of the $3,000 and the making of the notes of March, 1909, and the notes themselves, are in writing. The written contract is for a sale, not of the property of the corporation, but of the stock in the corporation, and it was in payment for the pur[890]*890chase by Linhoff of that stock that he paid to Schultz the $3,000 he borrowed of Moerschel and the $32,000 he borrowed of the banks on his note, with Moerschel as surety, and gave him the two $10,000 notes signed by himself and Moerschel. Mr. Linhoff was mistaken in his testimony that, when Moerschel paid the indebtedness he had incurred as surety, he (Linhoff) gave Moerschel notes o'f the corporation signed by Moerschel as surety. All the notes but one are in evidence, and they are all signed by Frank J. Linhoff. There was no mistake in the finding of the court below that the loan which Moerschel made of his money and his credit in March, 1909, was to Linhoff, and not to the corporation.

As the original loan was. made by Moerschel to Linhoff, and not to the corporation, and was evidenced by the individual notes of Linhoff, it was indispensable to the liability of the new corporation, the bankrupt, that there should have been some contract of novation or assumption of unpaid demands of Moerschel and Mrs. Linhoff to sustain their claims, and the burden was on them to prove such a contract. The court below was of the opinion that they had failed to bear this burden, and a careful reading of all the evidence has failed to convince of the contrary.

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

Related

Tennessee-Hermitage Nat. Bank v. Hagan
119 So. 4 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
O'Bannon v. Moerschel
222 S.W. 1035 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 F. 887, 159 C.C.A. 159, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moerschel-v-obannon-ca8-1917.