Mount v. Seagrave Corp.

112 F. Supp. 330, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedFebruary 6, 1953
DocketCiv. 3600
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F. Supp. 330 (Mount v. Seagrave Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mount v. Seagrave Corp., 112 F. Supp. 330, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769 (S.D. Ohio 1953).

Opinion

UNDERWOOD, Chief Judge.

This is an action wherein plaintiffs, minority stockholders of defendant corporation, seek to enjoin defendant corporation and its Directors from presenting or submitting to the stockholders for approval a proposed transaction between the Seagrave Corporation and Herbert A. Post, Inc. Plaintiffs also seek to have the consummation of the transaction and the amendment to the Articles of the corporation restrained and a decree declaring the proposed plan to be illegal, void, hostile and inimicabje to the best interest of Seagrave and its stockholders. Since this action was filed on the day of a scheduled stockholders’ meeting, enjoining the meeting would have caused great damage to the corporation if the ultimate determination of the cause on the merits should be favorable to defendants. Therefore, with the approval of counsel for plaintiff and defendants, the Court entered an order which permitted the stockholders’ meeting to proceed, but ordered that no action be taken pursuant to any authorization granted or voted at the meeting until the decision of the Court in this case after a hearing on the merits.

Thereafter the evidence was presented before a Special Master and supplemented by subsequent stipulations of the parties and the matter was duly submitted to the Court for a decision on the record.

The Court having carefully considered the evidence, and being fully advised in the premises, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

Findings of Fact.

1. That defendant, The Seagrave Corporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Seagrave”), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan and having its principal assets and place of business in the City of Columbus, State of Ohio, where it is duly authorized to do business. The principal product of Seagrave is motorized fire-fighting equipment.

2. That the officers and Directors of Seagrave are as follows:

H. B. Spain, President and Director

J. Lester Stevenson, Vice-President and Director

Allen I. Pretzman, Director

Charles B. Wilkes, Director

Robert B. Wilkes, Director

Arthur A. Marcus, Director

John J. McCarthy, Director

H. M. Havens, Vice-President
A. C. Black, Secretary-Treasurer
L. K. Fornof, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
A. A. Kloss, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

3. That Seagrave at present has an authorized capital of 125,000 shares of common stock of the par value of $5 per share, all of one class, of which there are now issued and outstanding 122,700 shares, with one vote per share.

*332 4. That each of the plaintiffs herein is the owner of stock of Seagrave, each owning the number of shares hereinafter set forth opposite his or her name, and which he or she has owned since the date indicated:

Mabel Mount 50 shares owned since Feb. 9, 1951

Mathilde C. Seiff 100 shares owned since Dec. 20, 1950

Mathilde C. Seiff 50 shares owned since March 12, 1952

Frankie T. Wygant 100 shares owned since May 31, 1951

Frankie T. Wygant 100 shares owned since March 12, 1952

Esther Chadnow 50 shares owned since March 12, 1952

Anna Weintraub 100 shares owned since April 2, 1951

Irving Brett 50 shares owned since Feb. 9, 1951

Irving Brett 100 shares owned since Aug. 6, 1951

Sam Spector 100 shares owned since April 30, 1951

5. That each of the plaintiffs herein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. Each of the defendants other than Seagrave is a citizen and resident of the State of Ohio. Seagrave is a citizen and resident of the State of Michigan.

6. That the amount in controversy herein is in excess of $3,000.

7. That Herbert A. Post, Inc., a New York corporation, owns all the issued and outstanding common stock (40,000 shares) of The Fyr-Fyter Company, an Ohio corporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Fyr-Fyter”). Fyr-Fyter is engaged in the manufacture of portable fire extinguishers and other small items of fire-fighting equipment. William McKinley Wetzel (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Wetzel”) is the owner of all of the issued and outstanding shares of stock of Post. Wetzel’s ownership of Post gives him absolute control of Fyr-Fyter because Post owns all the outstanding shares of common stock of Fyr-Fyter. Fyr-Fyter has also, issued and outstanding 20,000 shares of 5% cumulative preferred stock, of which Wetzel owns at least 9,485 shares, and 10,000 shares of which are owned by a Mr. Marker, a friend and business associate of Wetzel.

8. That the facts concerning the negotiations which resulted in the proposal involved herein, are as stated in the last six full paragraphs of Page 3 of the Proxy Statement which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

9. That Exhibits A, B and C, commencing on pages 30, 36 and 39 respectively of the Proxy Statement, are correct copies of the agreement between Seagrave and Post, of the proposed amendment to Article V of the Articles of Incorporation and of the agreement for sale of common stock, entered into between Wetzel and members of the Wilkes group, which is represented on the Board of Directors by Messrs. Charles B. Wilkes, Robert B. Wilkes, Arthur A. Marcus and John J. McCarthy.

10. That it is undisputed that the Wilkes group, which owns approximately 43,000 shares of common stock, and which is exercising working control of Seagrave through a majority on the Board of Directors, has been in serious disagreement over company policies with Messrs. Pretzman, Spain and Stevenson, who are minority members of the Board of Directors, and who are also in active management of the company as officers and general counsel.

11. That the conflict between the present members of the Board of Directors was so bitter and intense that if it continued, the logical consequence appeared to be either the resignation or discharge of Pretzman, Spain and Stevenson from their respective positions as Counsel, President and Vice-President of Seagrave Corporation; none of these officials of the corporation has an employment contract with the corporation.

12. That the Proxy Statement did not inform the stockholders of the conflict among the Directors.

13. That Wetzel, who will have control of Seagrave if the plan is consummated, has promised to continue to employ Pretzman, *333 Spain and Stevenson in their respective positions with the corporation.

14. That the fact that Pretzman, Spain and Stevenson have definite reasons to believe that their continued employment by the corporation would be more certain if the plan were consummated, has not been called to the attention of the stockholders in the Proxy Statement.

15.

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

Related

Dal-Tran Service Co. v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc.
14 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 F. Supp. 330, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-v-seagrave-corp-ohsd-1953.