Newman v. Mercantile Trust Co.

88 S.W. 6, 189 Mo. 423, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 86
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 15, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 88 S.W. 6 (Newman v. Mercantile Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newman v. Mercantile Trust Co., 88 S.W. 6, 189 Mo. 423, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 86 (Mo. 1905).

Opinion

BRACE., P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the St. Louis Circuit Court overruling plaintiff’s motion to set aside a nonsuit.

The suit was instituted on the 13th of May, 1902. The defendant's are the Mercantile Trust Company, the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, John Scullin and Festus J. Wade.

The petition is in two counts. The 'first count is as follows:

“Plaintiff states that the defendant, the Mercan[431]*431tile Trust Company, was at the time hereinafter stated and now is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, providing for the incorporation of trust companies. That the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company was, at the times hereinafter stated, and now is a railroad corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. That the plaintiff, Louis E. Newman, is and was at the times hereinafter stated the trustee appointed by and acting under the last will and testament of Socrates Newman, deceased, said will having been duly probated in the probate court in and for the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and that plaintiff brings this action in his capacity as said trustee. That heretofore, to-wit, on the 23rd day of April, 1902, plaintiff owned and held as such trustee one hundred shares of the capital stock of the "Wiggins Ferry Company, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and was lawfully possessed of the certificates duly issued for said one hundred shares of stock. That on the 28th of April, 1902, the defendant, John Scullin, a director and president, and defendant, Festus J. Wade, a director of the Wig’gins Ferry Company, officially and individually illegally combined with said Mercantile Trust Company and said Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, defendants, to deceive and defraud plaintiff and presented to this plaintiff a paper or offer to purchase said stock, as follows:
‘ ‘ The Mercantile Trust Company, acting herein for other parties, offers to purchase a majority or all the shares of the capital stock of the Wiggins Ferry Company, a corporation existing under, the laws of Illinois, and agrees to pay therefor on the delivery of the certificates for so many of said shares, not less than a majority, as shall be deposited with said trust company on or before May 5th, 1902, properly endorsed in blank for assignment and transfer on the books of said Ferry Company, the .sum of five hundred dofiars per share. [432]*432The trust company acting in the capacity as agent of other parties is to receive from such other parties for its' services a commission of two and one-half per cent upon the purchase-price of five hundred dollars per' share in addition to said purchase-price. The Mercantile Trust Company will not be obliged to accept any stock unless the owners of a majority of shares have agreed to sell the same to said Mercantile Trust Company, agent, on or before May 5th, 1902.
“ ‘Mercantile Trust Company,
“ ‘By Festus J. Wade, President.’
“That in connection with said offer to purchase there was prepared and attached to said offer as a part of the proposed contract an acceptance to be signed by the stockholders of said Wiggins Ferry Company, in words and figures as follows, to-wit:
“ ‘The undersigned stockholders of the Wiggins Ferry Company, do hereby accept the foregoing proposition and sell to the Mercantile Trust Company on the terms therein stated, the number of shares of the capital stock of the Wiggins Ferry Company set opposite to our respective names.’
■ “Plaintiff says that, relying on the terms of said offer and acceptance, and that it was the intention of said trust company to purchase not less than a majority of said stock at and for the price of five hundred dollars a share, and no more, and that if said trust company did not obtain such majority of stock on or before the 5th day of May, 1902, at the said price of five hundred dollars a share, that his said stock would be returned to him, plaintiff signed said acceptance and delivered his stock, or the certificates representing the same, to said trust company, and received a receipt therefor, being a receipt for certificates for one hundred shares of the capital stock of the Wiggins Ferry Company assigned in blank, said shares being deposited with the Mercantile Trust Company under and in pursuance of said proposition made by said trust com-[433]*433party as agent for other parties and the acceptance thereof signed by said L. E. Newman, trustee of Socrates Newman’s estate, dated April 24th, 1902, for the purchase of said shares.
“Plaintiff states that afterwards, to-wit, on April 28, 1902, and before the time on which said contract could have become binding on plaintiff, all said defendants having so combined to deceive and defraud plaintiff, did further misrepresent the facts as to purchase of stock under said contract and to illegally retain the same and withhold the same from plaintiff, the said Mercantile Trust Company sent plaintiff by mail a letter enclosing to him its treasurer’s check for the sum of fifty thousand dollars in payment, as stated in said letter, for one hundred shares of stock in the Wiggins Perry Company, sold in accordance with the terms of the proposition made by said company and accepted by plaintiff, thereby representing that the terms and conditions of said proposal and acceptance had been fully complied with by said Mercantile Trust Company, and that a majority of the stock of the Wiggins Ferry Company had been acquired from the stockholders at the price named therein.
“Plaintiff states that he notified said Mercantile Trust Company that he accepted said check only on condition that said trust company had fully carried out said contract on its part and had obtained the majority of said stock at and for the price of five hundred dollars a share, and that plaintiff waived no rights which he might have in the matter.
“Plaintiff states that said Mercantile Trust Company has at no time purchased, secured and had a majority of said stock for itself, or for any principal represented by it, that is, over five thousand shares thereof ; that in order to obtain what shares it did have on the said 5th day of May, 1902, said Mercantile Trust Company paid to other stockholders much more than [434]*434five hundred dollars a share, and the purchaser has not kept and performed the offer and contract on its part, and that on the 5th day of May, 1902, said purchaser did not have a majority of said stock, and did not purchase what he did have at five hundred dollars a share, and thereby this plaintiff was released from said agreement and said purchasers were bound to return said stock of this plaintiff to him.

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

Related

Osborn v. Chandeysson Electric Co.
248 S.W.2d 657 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)
Andrews v. Bank of Buchanan County
234 S.W. 518 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1921)
Jackson v. City of Sedalia
187 S.W. 127 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1916)
Kansas City Casualty Co. v. Westport Avenue Bank
177 S.W. 1092 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
Siff v. Jackson
172 S.W. 1169 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
Handlan Buck Manufacturing Co. v. Stave Electrical Co.
168 S.W. 785 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Clubb v. Scullin
139 S.W. 420 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
Barrie v. United Railways Co.
119 S.W. 1020 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Wann v. Scullin
109 S.W. 688 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Ennis v. Padgett
99 S.W. 782 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 S.W. 6, 189 Mo. 423, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-mercantile-trust-co-mo-1905.