Neukom v. North Butte Mining Co.

84 F.2d 101, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 1, 1936
DocketNo. 7440
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 F.2d 101 (Neukom v. North Butte Mining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neukom v. North Butte Mining Co., 84 F.2d 101, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400 (9th Cir. 1936).

Opinion

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by Central Hanover Bank, as trustee for bondholders, to foreclose a mortgage securing $595,-000 worth of bonds issued by defendant North Butte Mining Company, a corporation of Minnesota. By various pleadings and stipulations, it was made to appear that plaintiff trustee had sufficient moneys paid it by defendant to satisfy all bondholders in full; and the issue narrowed to the validity of eight North Butte bonds in the face amount of $1,000 each. These bonds had been in the possession of John W. Neukom, formerly an officer and director, and later receiver of the defendant company. Defendant in its answer claimed that the bonds were invalid, never having been lawfully issued to Neukom. Nan Neukom, the party in whose interest the suit was brought, received whatever interest her husband, John W. Neukom, held in the bonds, by way of gift.

The First & American National Bank of Duluth filed a complaint in intervention, alleging that the eight bonds in question had been pledged to it by John W. Neukom; that to the extent of the pledge it was a holder in due course.

On the issues thus framed, the cause came on for trial. The District Judge found that the eight bonds had been appropriated by Neukom “without corporate authority,” without consideration, and “in fraudulent breach of trust.” He further found that, to the extent of its pledge, the intervener was a holder in due course and entitled to payment. A decree was entered, requiring the plaintiff trustee to satisfy the intervener’s claim out of the funds paid to trustee by defendant, and requiring that upon such payment the bonds be delivered up by intervener to be cancelled.

Nan Neukom took this appeal in the name of the trustee, not questioning the right of the intervener to satisfy the amount of its pledge, but asserting that she was entitled to the excess over such pledge; thus raising the sole issue before this court for consideration, viz., whether the bonds were validly issued by the company to John W. Neukom.

The evidence was conflicting in many particulars. For the most part it consisted of oral testimony. For this reason, the findings of the trial judge are entitled to great weight in this court. Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428, 444, 43 S.Ct. 445, 67 L.Ed. 731; National Reserve Ins. Co. v. Scudder (C.C.A.9) 71 F.(2d) 884, 888. A careful examination of the evidence convinces us that the trial court was right in concluding that Neukom received the bonds without valid corporate authorization, and that therefore between him or his donee and the company the bonds do not represent binding obligations.

The North Butte Mining Company had general officers in New York. Pursuant [102]*102to the law of Minnesota, the state of its incorporation, it maintained an office in Duluth, in that state, for the purpose of receiving service of summons there, and for any other business that might be required of it. Neukom was in charge of this statutory office during 1926 and 1927, and received for office expenses $50 per month. During the year 1926 he was also assistant secretary of the corporation. He was a director of the corporation between February 23, 1926, and November 7, 1927. For his services as assistant secretary he received $100 per month.

Some time during the spring of 1926 (just when does not appear) a merger was effected between the North Butte Mining Company and Tuolumne Copper Company. Neukom claims that he rendered special services in connection with this merger (for which services the bonds were given him) both during 1926 and at a much earlier period, between 1920 and 1923, at which earlier time he had carried on negotiation with officers of the two companies in respect to a merger. His evidence indicates that in 1925 he approached Atwater, president of North Butte, and Cotton, North Butte’s general counsel, with respect to drawing compensation, for the earlier work as well as with respect to future services by Neukom in connection with the contemplated merger, and compensation for such future services.

Neukom’s testimony tends to show that special services, outside the scope of his duties as an officer or director, were rendered during 1926, in connection with the North Butte-Tuolumne merger; that it was agreed between him, Atwater, and Cotton, that his compensation for all special services in connection with the merger, both during 1926 and before, would be $10,000; $2,000 was to be paid in cash, and the remaining $8,000 in bonds.

Pursuant to his understanding with At- ' water and Cotton, Neukom presented to the company a bill for special services on October 14, 1926. This bill was duplicated in a receipted voucher, dated December 30, 1926. The voucher was taken from the company’s files and received in evidence. It reads:

“Duplicate of statement rendered October 14, 1926:

“Special services rendered in connection with North Butte Tuolumne merger; analysis of merger agreement; with report on closing merger; report and opinion affecting charter analysis capital structure on stock issue and exchange treasury stock situation; set up of merger and exchange of stock from legal and accounting standpoints; preparation of date in financing bond sale campaign; miscellaneous consultations, conferences, etc., $10,000.00.

“Payment of above account is to cover settlement in full for all services rendered in calendar year 1926.

“Received in full payment of the above amount North Butte Mining Company 10 Year 7% Convertible Bonds with $4.00 stock purchase and conversion warrants attached amounting in the aggregate face value $8,000., and $2,000. in cash.

“[Signed] John W. Neukom.”

The voucher bore the certification of Atwater, president, and the approval of Kennedy, treasurer, of the company.

There was introduced in evidence the minutes of the regular meeting of the board of directors of the company held in New York City on December 28, 1926. Present were Atwater, Cotton, Kennedy, Neukom, one William P. Jahn, and others. The minutes recite:

“On motion duly made, seconded and carried, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

“Resolved: That the acts of the Executive Officers in the sale of $8,000. of the Company’s First Mortgage 10 Year 7% Convertible bonds carrying stock warrant option on the basis of $4.00 per share be, and the same hereby is, in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed.”

The bonds in suit were mailed to Neukom in New York.

There are two journal entries in the company’s records, the first one crossed out, showing debit of $8,000 to general expense, and $8,000 credit to “First Mortgage Bonds * * * delivered to John W. Neukom in full settlement of services rendered re North Butte Tuolumne Merger Bonds M301/8 inc. $1,000.” These entries were carried into the ledger of the company.

In addition to the $8,000 of bonds and $2,000 cash paid Neukom in accordance with the voucher which we have quoted, he received from the corporation at least $5,925, over and above his salary, during 1926 for special services in connection with the North Butte-Tuolumne merger. This $5,925 was made up of several amounts, each represented by a voucher. It does not [103]*103appear by what corporate authority they were paid.

Two of the defendant company’s bylaws are material:

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

Related

Antonsen v. Hedrick
89 F.2d 149 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 F.2d 101, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neukom-v-north-butte-mining-co-ca9-1936.