Poling v. Teter

60 S.E. 1101, 64 W. Va. 117, 1908 W. Va. LEXIS 20
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 17, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 S.E. 1101 (Poling v. Teter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Poling v. Teter, 60 S.E. 1101, 64 W. Va. 117, 1908 W. Va. LEXIS 20 (W. Va. 1908).

Opinion

POFFENBARGER, PRESIDENT:

The only important inquiry raised on the appeal of David H. Poling and Columbus Kelly, from a decree pronounced in the chancery suit brought by them against Charles F. Teter, James E. Hall, Alston G. Dayton, J. C. Menoher, John Kerr, The Hall Coal Company, The Philippi Coal Mining Company, F. O. Blue, Trustee, and A. Thompson, is whether the defendants, Charles F. Teter, James E. Hall and Alston G. Dayton, as holders of three-fifths of the capital stock of the Hall Company, realized any profit, from the sale of the property and assets of the Hall Coal Company to the Philippi Coal Mining Company. If they did, they were admittedly bound to make an equal division thereof with the plaintiffs, Poling and Kelly, by virtue of the following agreement:

“Nov. 2, 189J. We hereby agree with C. Kelley and D. H. Poling, that in consideration, of their assignment, their stock, in the Hall Coal Coampany, to J. C. Menoher, and John Kerr, that when said companies property is sold, or the consolidation of said Hall Coal Company, with the English Syndicate, or any other transfer of said property, which is now contemplated, or may hereafter be made, is consummated,' then the said Poling and Kelly, are to share their equal pro[119]*119portionate part, of all profits, in stock and money, or either, upon such consideration or transfer of said property, as may be mutually agreed upon, between them and us. C. F. Teter, Jas. E. Hall, Alston G. Dayton.”

Though this agreement is predicated on an assignment, by Kelly and Poling, to Menolier and Kerr, of stock in the Hall Coal Company, contemporaneously or previously made, and the plaintiffs themselves in their testimony, admit such assignment by a separate paper and the cessation of their relation to the company as stockholders, and that they were looking thereafter for nothing more than a share of the profits, if any, that should be derived or acquired by Teter, Hall and Dayton, from the remaing three-fifths of the stock, an effort Avas made, in the course of the examination of the witnesses and otherwise, to treat the plaintiffs as the equitable owners of the stock they had assigned to Menoher and Kerr. For any such claim there is no basis in the evidence, and the inquiry will be limited to the question of the profit accruing to Teter, Hall and Dayton from the stock of the Hall Coal Company. The agreement above quoted may have made them equitable owners of two-fifths of the sharses held by Teter, Hall and Dayton, but that question need not be decided since, by the terms of the agreement, they are entitled to no relief, if no profit was realized on those shares.

About the year 1895, Columbus Kelly, one of the plaintiffs began to interest himself in the organization of a coal mining enterprise near the town of Philippi, in Barbour county. From time to time, other persons became associated with him, and, for the prosecution of the work, the Hall Coal Company was incorporated on the 22nd day of January, 1896, by J. E. Hall, Charles F. Teter, Columbus Kelly, D. H. Poling and G. W. Hoover, with an authorized capital stock of $50,-000.00, of which $500.00 had been subscribed and $50.00 paid thereon, each of the subscribers having taken one share of the par value of $100.00 and made the statutory payment of ten per cent. No additional stock was ever issued. Hoover subsequently sold or surrender his share to the company and it was afterwards sold to A. G. Dayton. In the name of this corporation, about 355 acres of the coal in certain land situate a mile or two from Philippi, on the Grafton & Belington division of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, was purchased, [120]*120but not all paid for. For some of it, deeds were taken in wbicb vendors’ liens were reserved and the balance was held under executory contracts of purchase. The land on which the mine was opened, part of the Kelly estate, in which Columbus Kelly, one of the stockholders, was interested as an heir, was held under a contract of purchase and only a small part of the purchase money had been paid. Options or deeds in escrow for some four or five thousand acres of additional coal in place were taken. In 1897, though the mine had been opened and worked, and machinery installed, the affairs • of the company were in a deplorable condition. Very little of its coal had been paid for and it was heavily indebted for labor, machinery and implements. A great many of the options, practically all of them, had expired, and many of the deeds ,tliat had been delivered in escrow had been withdrawn. Dayton, Hall and Teter had made themselves personally liable on its paper for large sums of money. Kelly and Poling, men of less financial ability, were burdened in the same way, but for a much smaller amount. Under these embarrassing conditions, many schemes were devised to relieve the situation, liepeated and persistent 'efforts were made in the year 1897 and probably prior to that date, to sell the property and pay off the debts, and, if possible, realize profits from it. Mr. Teter had made a trip to Liverpool, England, and secured a contract for the sale of this and other properties in that community, but it failed. Efforts were made to enlist Pennsylvania capitalists, at Pittsburg, Philadelphia and elsewhere, but all these were abortive. In May, 1897, the Philippi Coal Mining Company was incorporated with an authorized capital stock of $500,000.00, of which $600.00 was subscribed bj7 E. Theiland of Phiadelphia, J. C. Menoher, John Kerr of Grecnsburg, Pa., and James E. Hall, A. G. Dayton and C. F. Teter, of Philippi, West Virginia, on which they had paid $60.00, ten per cent of the amount subscribed. On the 16th day of June, 1897, a resolution was adopted by the stockholders of the Hall Coal Company, authorizing a conveyance of all its property, franchises, rights and privileges to the Philippi Coal Mining Company, for and in consideration of the assumption by the latter of all the outstanding debts of the former, due to land owners for purchase money of coal, to miners and employees for [121]*121labor and services and to other persons for purchase money of machinery, cars, tipple, live stock and materials, and a deed, accordant with the resolution, was thereupon executed and unanimously approved by the stockholders and delivery thereof directed to be made by Hall, the President. Though this deed was dated June 16,1897, and acknowledged August 7, 1897, it was not delivered until sometime afterwai’ds. No doubt the new corporation to which it was proposed to sell all of the property and assets of the Hall Coal Company was organized with the intention to make it the means or instrumentality by which to enlist strangers in the enterprise and bring about a settlement of the indebtedness of that company and the acquisition of the additional property on which it had options of purchase, and so not only pay its debts and effectuate its purpose, but make for its stockholders a profit, if possible, provided this was not done by a sale to the “English Syndicate” or somebody else. It is highly probable the sale to the Philippi company without profit was intended as an alternative to be resorted to only in case of necessity — failure to make a better sale. At the time of the authorization of the sale without profit, the indebtedness was large, and it continued to increase. Nearly two years later, April or May, 1899, when the sale was made, it amounted to about $40,000.00. Kelly himself says that he and Teter estimated it at 42 or 48 thousands dollars.

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

Related

Sayre v. McIntosh
92 S.E. 443 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 S.E. 1101, 64 W. Va. 117, 1908 W. Va. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poling-v-teter-wva-1908.