Munro v. Smith

259 F. 1, 170 C.C.A. 1, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1588
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 1919
DocketNo. 1359
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 259 F. 1 (Munro v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Munro v. Smith, 259 F. 1, 170 C.C.A. 1, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1588 (1st Cir. 1919).

Opinion

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the District of-Rhode Island, dismissing with costs a bill brought by Arthur E. Munro, trustee in bankruptcy of the Big Chief Mining Company, adjudicated bankrupt August 24, 1915, in said. District Court. The defendants are Fred L- Smith, formerly a director and now a stockholder and creditor; Charles J. Davol, also a stockholder and creditor — both citizens of Rhode Island. Mary H. Carroll, executrix under the will of Thomas A. Carroll, was originally named a defendant, but during the trial the bill was, by a consent decree, conditionally dismissed as to her.

Frederick E. Browne, a citizen of California and a mining engineer, where he was resident general manager of the bankrupt’s, mining property as well as statutory agent, was named as a defendant but was not served. ’ He did, however, attend as a witness and testify.

The bill alleges fraud, collusion, and conspiracy on the part of Smith, Davol, Browne, and Carroll, deceased — in which fraud breach of fiduciary duty plays a large part — to obtain the bankrupt’s property for themselves.

The trial in the District Court went upon the theory that the plaintiff’s right of recovery should first be determined, leaving, if the bill should be sustained, the question of the amount of damages and the nature of the relief, for subsequent consideration. As that court found no liability the case was really only partially tried.

The pleadings are long, covering, with their annexes, 90 printed pages. Both the bill and the answers are argumentative. There is little dispute as to basic facts. The defendants’ counsel admit performance by the defendants of practically all the substantive acts stated in the bill.

The evidence is also bulky, covering nearly 300 pages besides corporation records not printed. Most of this evidence, however, consists of correspondence between the parties during the period of the transactions in question. The parol evidence adduced before the District Court is of minor significance.

[1] The case must turn upon the admitted facts, the inferences therefrom, and upon the interpretation of written evidence, in considering which, of course, the District Court had no substantial ad[3]*3vantage over this court. The usual rule of giving great weight to the conclusions of the trial judge who observed the appearance and the •manner of the witnesses is not, therefore, to any substantial degree, applicable in this case. As we are not able to adopt the views of the District Judge, it is necessary to deal in considerable detail with the evidence and necessary inferences therefrom.

The bankrupt is an Arizona corporation, a successor of the California Big Chief Mining Company, a California corporation. The earlier company on May 14, 1910, made a contract with W. Mack Foster and Dee W. Foster, owners of a two-thirds undivided interest in certain mining claims called the Jumbo claims, and with Pat and Dulu McCluskey, owners of the other one-third undivided interest, by which the corporation became entitled to purchase these claims located at Hart, Cal., for $50,000, paying therefor out of the net returns of mining in monthly installments arranged upon a sliding scale, but with a guarantee of certain minimum monthly payments which, from January, 1911, were required to be at least $450 a month. Nonpayment of the monthly installments after 30 days’ notice grounded forfeiture of'the company’s rights under the contract.

The company did not agree to pay this full amount of $50,000, but had the right to abandon, and in case of abandonment, or forfeiture, was entitled to remove the mill, machinery and mining tools used by it on the property described. The bankrupt also owned, or had rights in, certain other claims called the Fairview group and the Oro Belle No. 2; but these claims do not seem to have been regarded as of great importance. The main reliance for financial success was upon the acquisition and development of the Jumbo claims.

In July, 1913, the bankrupt had some 300 stockholders, about 100 of whom are referred to as the chief stockholders. From most of these chief stockholders money had been borrowed on time notes referred to as debenture notes. Into this mining enterprise there appears to have gone about $140,000 in cash. This investment was represented in July, 1913, by outstanding stock of the par value of something over $1,600,000, and by debenture notes of $36,487.83 owing its chief stockholders. Debts to outsiders, not including Browne’s salary claim of $886.09, amounted to only about $2,300. Its assets consisted of its mining claims, and a mill and othpr mining implements on the Jumbo group into which appears to have gone about $27,000. The value of the mining claims was, of course, problematical. They are referred to as a prospect and “not a poor man’s prospect.” The mill had, in 1913, been put in operation; but the results were disappointing; its operation did not produce sufficient profits to pay operating expenses and the accruing payments under the Foster-Mc-Cluskey contract. New capital was therefore needed to develop the claims.

The financial status thus outlined remained substantially the same up to the time of the bankruptcy in August, 1915, except that the debenture notes, including apparently some accruing interest, had increased on August 23, 1915, to $57,319.41. Browne’s claim for salary was then about $4,000. But within this period of about two years [4]*418 additional payments of $450 each seem to have been made for the Jumbo claims under the Foster-McCluskey contract; so that, theoretically at least, the bankrupt’s interest in its mining property had been increased. The company’s debts except to its larger stockholders were, during the entire period, almost negligible. Most of the chief stockholders appear to have been resident in Rhode Island and in Massachusetts.

[2] We have, then, the common case of a mine in the West, mainly owned and financed by eastern investors, who were at the same time creditors and stockholders. The enterprise was embryonic; additional capital and successful development thereby was essential to save the investment already made.

The defendant Browne was a mining engineer, and was appointed resident manager in March, 1912. Whether he was the original promoter of these mining enterprises does not clearly appear. The directors of the corporation were all resident in Rhode Island or in Massachusetts. Browne was the only official on or near the company’s property. Upon him as the resident manager the bankrupt and its board of directors 3,000 miles away relied and had a right to rely. In May, 1912, Browne was also appointed under a California statute disbursing agent and agent for the acceptance of service, and held these two positions until the adjudication in bankruptcy on August 24, 1915. The defendant Smith had been a director of the enterprise from February, 1910, and remained a director until May, 1914. His resignation was accepted on May 19, 1914, and on that date Carroll was elected, at Smith’s request, as his successor. Carroll was a practicing attorney in Providence, and acted as counsel for the company. Counsel for the defendants deny that he was under any general retainer. He was one of two attorneys whose names appear on the letter head of the company, Exhibit 14. He appears to have been, during the period in question, the only counsel generally relied upon by the officers and directors of the company for advice and assistance in the East.

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

Related

King County v. Viracon Inc
W.D. Washington, 2021
Munoz v. Nielsen
D. Nevada, 2020
Zakibe v. Ahrens & McCarron, Inc.
28 S.W.3d 373 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
Harr v. Allstate Insurance Co.
238 A.2d 688 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)
Raskin v. Shulton, Inc.
223 A.2d 284 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)
State v. Mason
218 A.2d 158 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)
State v. Portee
216 A.2d 227 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1966)
Beecroft v. Point Pleasant Print. & Pub. Co.
197 A.2d 416 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1964)
Handleman v. Cox
181 A.2d 366 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
State v. Johnson
177 A.2d 312 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Bowles v. Beatrice Creamery Co.
146 F.2d 774 (Tenth Circuit, 1944)
In Re Estate of Lee
9 N.W.2d 245 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
Hursh v. Lee
214 Minn. 448 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
Northern Mining Corp. v. Cooke Mining Co.
123 F.2d 9 (Ninth Circuit, 1941)
Driver v. Blakeley
107 P.2d 524 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1940)
Robbins v. Huntley Cattle Co.
100 P.2d 386 (Washington Supreme Court, 1940)
Richardson v. Blue Grass Mining Co.
29 F. Supp. 658 (E.D. Kentucky, 1939)
Slosberg v. Callahan Oil Co.
7 A.2d 853 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 F. 1, 170 C.C.A. 1, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munro-v-smith-ca1-1919.