Paine v. Saulsbury

166 N.W. 1036, 200 Mich. 58, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 796
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 27, 1918
DocketDocket No. 50.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 166 N.W. 1036 (Paine v. Saulsbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paine v. Saulsbury, 166 N.W. 1036, 200 Mich. 58, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 796 (Mich. 1918).

Opinions

In pursuance of a resolution adopted by the directors of Trimountain Mining Company, they filed their petition in the Houghton circuit court, on October 25, 1916, praying for an order dissolving said corporation. The resolution is as follows:

"Whereas, the average annual net earnings of this company for the 14 years next preceding the present year have been only $2.22 for each share, without making any deduction for depletion of the mineral deposits in its mine; *Page 59

"And, Whereas, the Copper Range Company, operating mines adjoining that of this company, is the holder of more than 99/100 of the capital stock of this company, and has offered to buy from the holders thereof the remainder of said stock and to issue in payment therefor, an equal number of shares of its own stock, which offer the holders of said stock refuse to accept, although the net earnings of the Baltic mine, one-half of the net earnings of the Champion mine, and the net earnings of the Copper Range railroad, all of which belong to said Copper Range company, have been, for said 14 years previous, and still are, nearly twice as much per share as the net earnings of this company;

"And, Whereas, said Copper Range Company has offered, and still offers, to bind itself to bid for the mine and property of this company, in case of dissolution and public sale of its property, the sum of $6,000,000, amounting to $60 per share of its capital stock;

"And, Whereas, the earnings of this company as aforesaid, amount to only 3 7/10 per cent. per annum on the sum that would be realized on such sale, if made on the bid of said Copper Range Company, and will cease with the exhaustion of the mine, while the money so realized on such sale would yield at least 5 per cent. interest in perpetuity, thus yielding a larger annual return in perpetuity to each stockholder than can be realized by them from the operation of the mine for only a limited period;

"And, Whereas, this company has no railroad for the transportation of its rock to stamp mill, and is dependent upon the Copper Range railroad therefor;

"And, Whereas, the stamp mill of this company has been destroyed by fire, making it necessary to build a new mill, at an expense of about $500,000, if it continue to operate its mine, or to pay for the treatment of its rock, in either case materially reducing its earnings, at least until a new stamp mill can be built;

"Therefore, Resolved that the directors of this company deem it highly beneficial to the stockholders that it should be dissolved, and that its mine and other property be sold under decree of court and that the proceeds thereof be distributed among the stockholders." *Page 60

Saulsbury and Foley, the respondents, answered, denying certain conclusions stated in the petition, and denying that the resolution of the board and petition contain sufficient reasons why the company should be dissolved. And they charge that because of interlocking directors in the Trimountain and Copper Range companies, the directors of Trimountain company were in no position to act or vote on the foregoing resolution.

At the hearing some additional facts to those set up in the petition were shown, which are in substance:

(a) That respondents bought their stock consisting of 300 shares as an investment prior to the year 1900, and they have ever since held it as an investment, believing that it was a good investment, and are desirous of retaining it.

(b) That four of the directors of Trimountain company are directors and constitute a majority of the board of directors of Copper Range company. That the four directors have only nominal interests in the Trimountain but have large investments in Copper Range.

(c) That the Trimountain Mining Company produced 8,302,896 pounds of refined copper in the year 1915, and 8,720,000 pounds in the year 1916.

(d) That the company's net earnings in 1915 were $654,746.52, and that it earned over 12 per cent. in 1916, and no dividend was paid in either year.

(e) That at the time of the hearing its cash surplus over and above its indebtedness amounted to approximately $2,000,000, which stood to its credit in a Boston National bank.

(f) That the outlook for the production of copper is very promising and the price received therefor higher than for many year.

(g) That within recent years the mine has been developed and is now fully equipped with modern iron *Page 61 shaft houses, boiler houses, stores, mine residences and numerous other buildings at its stamp mill site and at its mine site, and that the mine has been sunk to a considerable depth and miles of drifting has been done through the lode to develop and locate the copper deposits.

(h) That Copper Range Company is not a mining corporation but a holding company, owning at the present time all of the Baltic, one-half of the Champion, and all of the Trimountain except the 300 shares owned by respondents. That it also owns all of the stock of the Copper Range railroad.

These proceedings are statutory and are dependent upon chapter 40 of the judicature act (Act No. 314, Pub. Acts 1915, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13563-13577). This law first came into our statutes by force of Act No. 56 of the Laws of 1839, and has remained without substantial change until the present time. The principal use made of the statute during the intervening years has been to aid in dissolving corporations that were insolvent, or in failing circumstances, or where the object for which they had been incorporated was at an end. The act is now invoked to aid in dissolving a solvent corporation, a prosperous going concern with a large cash surplus. These circumstances make it incumbent upon the court to examine the reasons stated in the petition for dissolution with much closer scrutiny than it would had the question of insolvency or threatened insolvency been involved. (White v. Kincaid, 149 N.C. 415, and cases cited.)

That part of the act calling for construction is sections 1 and 4.

"SECTION 1. Whenever the directors, trustees or other officers having the management of the concerns of any corporation, or the majority of them, shall discover that the stock, property and effects of such corporation have been so far reduced by losses or otherwise, that it will not be able to pay all just demands *Page 62 to which it may be liable, or to afford a reasonable security to those who may deal with such corporation, or whenever such directors, trustees or officers, or a majority of them, shall, for any reason, deem it beneficial to the stockholders that such corporation should be dissolved, they may apply by petition to the court of chancery for the county wherein said corporation is located for a decree dissolving such corporation, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter: Provided, that the provisions of this chapter shall not extend to any incorporated library or lyceum society; to any religious corporation; to any incorporated academy or select school not organized for pecuniary profit; nor to the proprietors of any burying ground incorporated under the laws of this State."

"SECTION 4. On the day appointed in such order such court or circuit court commissioner shall proceed to hear the allegations and proofs of the parties and shall take testimony in relation thereto, and in case of a circuit court commissioner shall, with all convenient speed, report the same to the court with a statement of the property, effects, debts, credits, engagements and conditions of such corporation.

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

Related

In RE Appraisal of Ancestry.Com, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2015
McMinn v. MBF Operating Acquisition Corp.
2007 NMSC 040 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2007)
In Re Unocal Exploration Corp. Shareholders Litigation
793 A.2d 329 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2000)
Grato v. Grato
639 A.2d 390 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
In Re Dissolution of St. Johns Building & Loan Ass'n
33 N.W.2d 129 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1948)
Anderson v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.
87 N.E.2d 384 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1948)
Weisbecker v. Hosiery Patents, Inc.
51 A.2d 811 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
In Re San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.
127 P.2d 29 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Garrett v. Reid-Cashion Land & Cattle Co.
270 P. 1044 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1928)
In Re Petition of Hood
215 N.W. 412 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 N.W. 1036, 200 Mich. 58, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-saulsbury-mich-1918.