Public Bancorporation v. Atlantic City Wimsett Thrift Co.

158 A. 729, 110 N.J. Eq. 23, 9 Backes 23, 1932 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 179
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedFebruary 5, 1932
StatusPublished

This text of 158 A. 729 (Public Bancorporation v. Atlantic City Wimsett Thrift Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Public Bancorporation v. Atlantic City Wimsett Thrift Co., 158 A. 729, 110 N.J. Eq. 23, 9 Backes 23, 1932 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 179 (N.J. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

Ingersoll, V. C.

The Atlantic City Wimsett Thrift Company is a corporation of this state, having been incorporated on or about February 11th, 1928, for the purpose, among other things, of engaging in a small loan business. Said company has a total authorized capital stock of one thousand five hundred shares of preferred stock of the par value of $100 per share, and five thousand shares of common stock of no par value.

Prior to April, 1931, the Public Bancorporation, the complainant, was the owner of two thousand shares of the common stock of said Atlantic City company, one thousand nine hundred and two shares having been sold principally to local people in Atlantic City, the remaining one thousand and ninety-eight shares of the original authorized capital stock remaining in the treasury unsold.

On April 21th, 1931, a demand was made on the Atlantic City company by a creditor, a local bank, demanding the payment of at least $6,000 on a note of $11,900 held by the bank. A special meeting of the board of directors was immediately called to consider ways and means of meeting the demands of the bank. The defendant company had not earned sufficient to pay the semi-annual installment of dividends upon the preferred stock. At that time there was owing ‘to the preferred stockholders the sum of $9,800 and the company had on deposit, in cash, the approximate sum of $3,100.

This situation being presented to the board of directors, the president urged upon those present to take up the remaining unissued common stock of one thousand and ninety-eight shares, by each director taking a proportionate number thereof, at the rate of $5 per share, paying therefor in cash or by means of promissory notes, which could be discounted *25 iii the banks, the proceeds of which could be used in satisfying the bank’s demands.

The president further reported that E. E. Estoclet, A. H. Darnell, Dennis Kelly, W. E. Shaw, C. E. Adams, E. H. Harvey, E. R. Smith, Charles Proebstle, Chester Grey, Louis St. John, B. E. Dever, A. B. Endicott (Furniture Company), W. H. Norris and C. H. Godfrey had offered to purchase one thousand and ninety-eight shares of the common nonpar value stock of the company at the rate of $5 per share, and to pay for the same by check, or promissory note payable within four months.

After discussion, the following resolution was adopted:

“Be it resolved by the board of directors that whereas moneys are necessary to be raised to be applied in payment or reduction of certain promissory notes of the company now held by the Second National Bank, which notes amount to the sum of $11,900 and will mature on demand, that the offers made by E. E. Estoclet, A. H. Darnell, Dennis Kelly, W. E. Shaw, C. E. Adams, E. H. Harvey, E. R. Smith, Charles Proebstle, Chester Grey, Louis St. John, B. E. Dever, A. B. Endicott, W. H. Norris and C. H. Godfrey to purchase one thousand and ninety-eight shares of common no par value stock of the company remaining unissued, at the rate of $5 per share and to be paid by means of promissory notes executed by each of the offerees to the order of the company in the full amount of their respective purchase and payable within four months from the date of purchase be and the said offers hereby are accepted and the president and secretary are hereby authorized to issue certificates of common no par value stock to the offerees in accordance with the provisions of this resolution.”

In accordance with said resolution, certificates for seventy-eight shares were issued to each of the following: William F. Shaw, Carleton E. Adams, Edmund R. Smith, Allen B. Endicott, Wendell H. Norris, Edwin H. Harvey, Bernard E. Dever and Chester Grey, and seventy-nine shares to Dennis Kelly, Louis St. John, Albert H. Darnell, Charles Godfrey and Emile Estoclet, and thirty-four shares to Joseph Proebstle and forty-five shares to Charles Proebstle.

The bill is filed alleging that the complainant “has been deprived of its valuable right to participate in said issue of one thousand and ninety-eight shares of common stock, to which it has-always been ready and willing to subscribe its *26 proportionate share, and by reason of said deprivation, its control in the management has been destroyed and the value of its holdings materially diminished, the said issue of one thousand and ninety-eight shares of common stock being unlawful and fraudulent.”

Section 124 of the General Corporation act, as amended, reads as follows:

“Upon the issue of capital stock for cash, unless otherwise expressly provided in the certificate of incorporation, or in by-laws adopted by two-thirds in interest of each class of stockholders, every stockholder shall have a right (unless waived by him) according to the number of shares held by him to purchase his pro rata proportion of the stock to be issued, at such price (which may be in excess of the par value), within such time and on such terms as shall be fixed and determined by the board of directors; provided, that unless otherwise expressly provided in the certificate of incorporation, or by-laws adopted by two-thirds in interest of each class of stockholders, a holder of preferred or special stock entitled to limited preferential dividends and to a fixed sum upon any distribution of the assets of the corporation shall have and be entitled to exercise such pre-emptive rights only in case of the issue of stock of the same class held by him or of any class which has preference or priority as to assets or dividends over the class of stock held by him. In any such case the board of directors shall have power to determine what disposition shall be made of any stock to be issued and which shall not be subscribed for by stockholders.” Gum. Supp. Comp. Stat. p. 293 § 12/f.”

Counsel for defendants insist that this statute, as well as the general rule of law, applies only to “new issues of stock” and does not refer to original unissued stock in the hands of the corporation, which, by an original act of the directors, is awaiting sale.

There appears to be no adjudication upon this point in this state, although Vice-Chancellor Grey, in Way v. The American Grease Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 263, says:

“The power of distributing a new issue does not lie at the mere choice of directors. It is not a perquisite which they may use for their private advantage. They may not overthrow or secure for themselves the control of the corporation by means of a new issue of stock. This is true, whether as to a part of the stock authorized by the original incorporation which remains untaken (Reese v. Bank, 31 Pa. St. 78), or as *27 to stock issued after incorporation, on a subsequently authorized increase. Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364.”

The reason for this rule is given in 14 Corp. Jur. note 37 p. 394:

“(1) The same rule applies, as we shall see (infra

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

Related

Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird
44 A. 1048 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1899)
Bonnet v. First National Bank
60 S.W. 325 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1900)
Reese v. Bank of Montgomery County
31 Pa. 78 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1855)
Gray v. President of the Portland Bank
3 Mass. 364 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)
State ex rel. Page v. Smith
48 Vt. 266 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1876)
Humboldt Driving Park Ass'n v. Stevens
52 N.W. 568 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1892)
Eidman v. Bowman
58 Ill. 444 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1871)
Hammond v. Edison Illuminating Co.
90 N.W. 1040 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Jones v. Morrison
16 N.W. 854 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)
Luther v. C. J. Luther Co.
94 N.W. 69 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 A. 729, 110 N.J. Eq. 23, 9 Backes 23, 1932 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-bancorporation-v-atlantic-city-wimsett-thrift-co-njch-1932.