Holt, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a statutory proceeding. Code, section 3804. The petitioner prays that an election of the directors of the defendant company, held on February 14,1933, bé vacated and annulled; that a certain voting trust agreement be construed; that a new election of directors be ordered; that the trustees in said voting trust agreement be directed to vote for certain named gentlemen and that these trustees themselves be removed and others substituted.
[613]*613The defendants named in the said petition, with the exception of S. West Holden, moved the court to dismiss it, assigning the general ground that the allegations of the said petition were not sufficient in law to impeach the validity of the election or to justify the court or judge in ordering a new election or in granting any relief within the contemplation of section 3804 of the Code of Virginia. On motion of the petitioner, the defendants were required to state more specifically the grounds of their motion. This was done.
For the purposes of this motion the defendants admit and concede that they admit all averments of material facts. Of course, they do not admit inferences or conclusions of law.
Many years ago petitioner’s father made trunks in Petersburg. Bis business was highly successful. After-wards, in 1895, it was incorporated under the name of Seward Trunk and Bag Company, and was operated exclusively by the founder and members of his family. About twenty years ago he retired from active business and transferred it to his sons, three of whom, including the petitioner, thereafter directed, managed and controlled it. Certain other hag and trunk companies were acquired and in 1912 the American Hardware Company, Inc., was organized as a holding company, and operations under the same management were continued until 1928, when it was merged or consolidated with three other trunk and bag companies.
Three contracts deal generally with this subject, namely, a preliminary contract of date October 4, 1927, an agreement dated March 28,1928, and a voting trust agreement of date March 20, 1928. The last two are part and parcel of one transaction and were executed practically simultaneously, although that of March 28th must have been drafted before March 20th.
They set out in much detail what was done, and although voluminous they must be read in full and together [614]*614before any satisfactory understanding of the issues here is possible, and for that reason are copied into a footnote.1
The consolidated companies were American Hardware Company, Incorporated, Totty Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, Independent Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and Holden Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated.
Paragraph 5 of the preliminary contract outlines the plan proposed and reads as follows:
“The board1 of directors shall consist of eight members: Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward, George S. Bernard, Fred Pilcher, W. A. Totty, Henry L. Plummer, S. West Holden and B. Hamilton Seabury, should the Petersburg Luggage. Company become a party to this agreement, otherwise his place shall be filled by W. A. Totty, Jr.; and a voting trust agreement is to be entered into whereby the respective interest are at all times to be represented [615]*615on the board by the same number of directors herein provided.”
In the agreement dated March 28, 1928, the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, as a party of the first part, the stockholders of the Independent Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, the stockholders of the Totty Trunk and1 Bag Company, Incorporated, and the stockholders of the Holden Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, as parties of the second part; and Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward and Joseph W. Seward as parties of the third part, after making reference to the contract of October 4, 1927, proceeded to set out the details under which consolidation shall be made. Paragraph 8 of that contract reads as follows:
“The parties of the third part, holding together a majoritjr of shares of the American Company, in considera[616]*616lion of the promise herein made hy the American Company and the stockholders of the Independent Company, the Totty Company and the Hold'en Company, jointly and severally agree that Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward, George S. Bernard, Fred Pilcher, W. A. Totty, W. A. Totty, Jr., H. L Plummer and S. West Holden shall he elected directors of the American Company after this contract has been duly executed by all of the parties, if not then directors of said company, and said parties further agree that by means of a voting trust to be executed by them and hy George S. Bernard, Fred Pilcher, W. A. Totty, W. A. Totty, Jr., H. L. Plummer and S. West Holden and by such stockholders of the American Company as may care to become parties thereto, the persons herein agreed upon as directors shall be continued as such for twenty years from January 1, 1928; and that in the event any of said directors die within said period or become in[617]*617capacitated or resign or are removed for cause the vacancy or vacancies so created shall be filled by electing some other person or persons that will represent the same stock as was represented by those whose positions are being filled.”
In the voting trust agreement J. W. Seward, Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward, George S. Bernard; Fred Pilcher, W. A. Totty, W. A. Totty, Jr., Henry L. Plummer, S. West Holden and such other persons as may desire to become parties thereto, who were or might become stockholders in the American Hardware Company, appear as parties of the first part. Charles E. Plummer, G. Cleveland Wright and Sam’l W. Zimmer, trustees, are parties of the second part.
Reference is first made to the fact that under the agreement of October 4, 1927, the American Hardware Company had acquired' all the outstanding stock of said ac[618]*618quired companies and had issued in exchange therefor its own stock.
These important recitations then appear:
“Whereas, J. W. Seward, Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward, George S. Bernard, and Fred Pilcher, on the 4th day of October, 1927, who owned a majority of the issued and' outstanding capital stock of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated; W. A. Totty and W. A. Totty, Jr., a majority of the issued and outstanding capital stock of the Totty Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated; Henry L. Plummer, a majority of the issued and outstanding capital stock of the Independent Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated; and S. West Holden, a majority of the issued and outstanding capital stock of the Holden Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, agreed that the board of directors of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, should consist of eight (8) members, four (4) of whom should be selected from those who were stockholders of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, as of the date of the said agreement; two (2) [619]*619from the stockholders of the Totty Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated; and one (1) each from the stockholders of the Independent Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated; and of the Holden Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated; such representations of the respective interests of the said board of directors to be continued for a period of twenty years from the 31st day of December, 1927; and
“Whereas, in pursuance of such agreement, the said Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward, George S. Bernard, Fred Pilcher, W. A. Totty, W. A. Totty, Jr., Henry L. Plummer and S. West Holden have been duly elected members of the board of directors of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, to serve for the year 1928, and until their successors are duly elected and qualified; and
“Whereas, it is the desire of those who become parties to this agreement to continue for a period of twenty years the aforesaid representation on the board of directors of the various interests merged into the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, as they believe it to be essential for the success of the company and for the best [620]*620interests of all of the stockholders thereof, that the said company shall be managed and directed during the said period, under a definite and fixed policy, in order to secure a union of the interests necessary to properly develop the general business and earning capacity of said company; and
“Whereas, it is believed that this purpose can be best accomplished by a continuance upon the said board of directors of those who have been elected for the year 1928, on account of their experience in the manufacturing of trunks and hags, and of the large individual holdings of each of them in the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, and the parties hereto have, therefore, determined to deposit with the trustees their respective hold[621]*621ings of common stock in said company, in order that the trustees may hold and vote the same, for the purpose and in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.”
In section 6 of this agreement it is said: “But the powers herein given to the trustees are made expressly subject to the provisions of section 12 herein, with respect to the election of directors.”
Section 12, here referred to, reads: “The trustees, in voting the stock deposited with them under this agreement, shall preserve, during the life of this agreement, the representation upon the board of directors of the respective interests merged into the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, in accordance with the present representation, that is to say, four directors shall he elected from the stockholders of the American Hardware Com[622]*622pany, Incorporated, who were holders of stock prior to said merger and who continue as such, or from the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder, two shall be elected from those who were stockholders of the Totty Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and who on account of said merger have become, and continue as, stockholders of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated or from the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder, and one shall be elected from those who were stockholders of the Independent Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and who on account of said merger has become, and continue as, a stockholder of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, or from the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder, and one shall be elected from those who were stockholders of the Holden Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and who on account of said merger has become, and continue as, a stockholder of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, or from the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder. In case of vacancies in [623]*623the hoard of directors, due to resignation, death, incapacity, or other cause, the trustees shall make recommendations to the remaining directors as to the persons to be elected to fill such vacancies, to the end that the purposes of this agreement may be always accomplished due to the representation of the respective interests preserved' at all times upon the board of directors. They shall elect as directors of the company, during the life of this agreement, at each annual meeting of the stockholders, those who are the present directors, unless they are prevented from so doing by something beyond their control. Should the preferred stock become entitled to equal voting power with the common stock, the trustees shall vote the stock deposited hereunder in favor of such persons as may be nominated by a majority of the preferred stockholders for directors.”
As this agreement was originally drafted it did not contain the italicized sentence. A copy of the original draft [624]*624was furnished to the petitioner, afterward this sentence was added, but his attention was not called to it at the time of its execution and he did not have actual knowledge of it until some years later. No fraud is charged.
It is true that these contracts are not executed by the same parties. That of October 4, 1927, was executed by said several corporations and not by their individual stockholders. The contract, dated March 28, 1928, is executed by the American Hardware Company, the stockholders of the three companies absorbed, and by Harvey Seward, Hatcher S. Seward and Joseph W. Seward, while the voting trust agreement itself is signed by J. W. Seward, Harvey E. Seward, Hatcher S. Seward, George S. Bernard1, Fred Pilcher, W. A. Totty, W. A. Totty, Jr., Henry L. Plummer and S. West Holden, and by the trustees, Charles E. Plummer, G. Cleveland Wright and Sam’l W. Zimmer.
[625]*625The stockholders who signed this petition, with the exception of J. W. Seward, were at that time directors of the defendant company and are the same gentlemen whose continuance in office, as set out in the trust agreement, was deemed “essential for the success of the company and for the best interest of the stockholders thereof.”
Courts should not undertake to construe away the plain letter of a contract. The intention of the parties, as they write it, must prevail, but unfortunately this intention is not always plain. When this is true we look to the situation of the parties, the subject matter of the agreement, and its purpose.
“Regard should be had to the intention of the parties and such intention should be given effect. To arrive at this intention regard is to be had to the situation of the parties, the subject matter of the agreement, the object which the parties intended to accomplish. A con[626]*626struction should be avoided if it can be done consistently with the tenor of the agreement, which would be unreasonable or unequal, and that construction which is most obviously just is to be favored as most in accordance with the presumed intention of the parties.” McGuire v. Brown, 114 Va. 235, 76 S. E. 295, 297; Moore v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 159 Va. 703, 167 S. E. 351.
All of the provisions of a contract should be construed together and those which appear to conflict should be harmonized whenever it is reasonably possible. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Shulman Co., 125 Va. 281, 99 S. E. 602. If we look to the language of the trust agreement only we see that it was deemed essential to the success of the corporate business that the balance of power be preserved and that the representations of the several interests of its constituent elements be retained for twenty years.
At the risk of repetition and to make this clear, we quote again from section 12:
“The trustees, in voting the stock deposited with them [627]*627under this agreement, shall preserve, during the life of this agreement, the representation upon the hoard of directors of the respective interests merged into the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, in accordance with the present representation, that is to say, four directors shall be elected from the stockholders of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, who were holders of stock prior to said merger and who continue as such, or from the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder, two shall be elected from those who were stockholders of the Totty Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and who on account of said merger have become, and continue as, stockholders of tire American Hardware Company, Incorporated, or from the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder, and one shall be elected from those who were stockholders of the Independent Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and who on account of said merger has become, and continue as, a stockholder of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, or from the heirs [628]*628or assigns of any such stockholder, and one shall be elected from those who were stockholders of the Holden Trunk and Bag Company, Incorporated, and who on account of said merger has become, and continue as, a stockholder of the American Hardware Company, Incorporated, or from 'the heirs or assigns of any such stockholder.”
This purpose iterated and reiterated is everywhere made perfectly plain. Has it been wiped away by the addendum to this section? That reads:
“Should the preferred stock become entitled to equal voting power with the common stock, the trustees shall vote the stock deposited hereunder in favor of such persons as may be nominated by a majority of the preferred stockholders for directors.”
Who may he nominated by the preferred stockholders? No limitation is in terms put upon their choice, but this apparently unfettered discretion should be exercised in the light of the preservation of the balance of power. Those selected should truly represent these several in[629]*629terests whose appraised values as of December 31, 1927, were:
American Company_______________________$4,746,432.13
Independent Company-------------------- 107,900.95
Totty Company___________________________ 337,424.96
Holden Company_________________________ 92,753.10
$5,284,511.14
Petitioner, however, cannot complain. He is in part responsible for what was done, aided by Mr. Bernard, an original Seward director. He has waived his rights.
This is an extract from the minutes of the stockholders’ meeting of February 14, 1933:
“Upon motion of Mr. Geo. S. Bernard seconded by Mr. H. S. Seward, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
“Resolved, That Article III of section 1 of the by-laws he amended so as to read as follows:
[630]*630“Article III—Directors :
“Sec. 1-—Number and Authority.—The board of directors shall consist of not less than seven or more than nine persons to be selected from among the stockholders of the company at the regular annual meeting of the stockholders, and the persons so selected shall constitute the hoard of directors for the ensuing year and until their successors are elected. Should any vacancy occur on the board of directors during the year the vacancy shall be filled by the remaining directors. Said board shall have charge of the property, interest, business and transactions of the company, with full power and authority to manage and conduct the same; but the board may, whenever it sees fit, by a majority vote designate and executive committee of three from its members, which shall include the president, which committee shall, except as to matters [631]*631upon which the board of directors has acted, have and exercise the full power of the hoard of directors in the management of the business and affairs of the corporation, and shall also have the power to authorize the seal of the corporation to be affixed to all papers which may require it.”
Thereafter these nine gentlemen were nominated and elected, Harvey Seward, W. R. Seward, A. L. Seward, Fred Pilcher, George S. Bernard, B. J. Seward, W. A. Totty, Charles E. Plummer and Bernard C. Syme.
In the nature of things a directorate of nine is an unbalanced body under these contracts.
Mr. Plummer and Mr. Syme, elected directors at this meeting, are also trustees. The trustees originally named as we have seen were Mr. Plummer, Mr. Wright and Mr. Zimmer. Mr. Wright has resigned and Mr. Zimmer is dead. These two gentlemen have been succeeded by Mr. Benjamin T. Kinsey and Bernard C. Syme.
[632]*632There had been default in the payment of dividends. The trustees were obligated to vote stock held by them, when directors were to be elected, for men nominated by the preferred stockholders.
Tire by-laws of tire corporation provide that • “each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for every share of stock held in his name.” In the charter is this provision :
“The common stock shall have the exclusive voting power except as hereinafter provided with respect to the creation of liens unless during any one fiscal year the corporation shall fail to earn dividends on its preferred stock, in which event the preferred stock shall have the same voting power as the common stock until the earnings of the company are sufficient to pay dividends and past due dividends with interest are actually paid * * *.”
Code, section 3799, as amended by Acts 1926, ch. 578, p. 998, reads: “Unless it shall have been otherwise pro[633]*633vided in the charter, certificate of incorporation, or in the articles of association or in an amendment or by-laws, each person in whose name stock shall stand upon the books of any corporation at any date fixed by the bylaws as prescribed by section thirty-seven hundred and ninety-seven, shall be entitled to one vote in person or by proxy for each share of stock appearing in his or her name on said books.”
Let us for a moment forget the trust agreement and all that led to its execution. These directors were elected by a clear majority in interest both of the common and1 of the preferred stockholders.
It is their nomination rather than their election which is challenged. That, as we have seen, is provided for in the addendum to said section 12 of the trust agreement. The trustees are directed to vote stock deposited with them in favor of such persons as may be nominated “by a majority of the preferred stockholders.”
The voting power which rested in the preferred stockholders is fixed by the charter, by-laws and statute [634]*634heretofore noted, and that power could neither be altered nor abridged by any trust agreement assented to or executed by common stockholders. They may, however, tell their trustees for whom to vote and did tell them to vote for those nominated “by a majority of the preferred stockholders.” The preferred stockholders were not obliged to nominate anybody, but in harmony with this provision they did actually make nominations. Since they have done this it is proper that we should enquire into the manner in which it was done. Those gentlemen nominated were nominated by a majority in interest of the preferred stockholders. That, the trustees thought, complied with the provisions of their trust agreement and this conclusion met with the approval of the trial court.
In 14 C. J., p. 897, the rule is thus stated: “Majority in interest. Charter or statutory provisions or provisions in by-laws requiring the presence for the purposes of a quorum, or the vote or assent, of a majority of the stock[635]*635holders, or of two-thirds of them, etc., are generally construed as meaning a majority or two-thirds of the stockholders in interest and not in numbers, unless a contrary intention appears from the language or is to be inferred from the nature and purposes of the corporation.”
“A by-law or a charter or statutory provision requiring the affirmative vote of a majority of the stockholders, or of a majority of those present at the meeting, means a majority in interest rather than a majority in number only. The computation should be based on the amount of stock outstanding at the time of the meeting rather than on the amount of capital authorized.” 3 Fletcher on Corp., section 1647, p. 2764.
In Bank of Los Banos v. Jordan, 167 Cal. 327, 139 Pac. 691, the court, in a short per curiam opinion, said: “The opinion of the court is that the clause of section 290 of the Civil Code which is in.these words, ‘provided, also, that at any time during the existence of corporations for profit, [636]*636other than those of the character last hereinabove provided for, the number of the directors may, by a majority of the stockholders of the corporation, be increased, or diminished' to any number not less than three, who must be members of the corporation,’ means a majority of interest of the stockholders, and not a majority in number only. And sections 362 and 312 do not change that construction of 290 and do not require any more than a majority in interest.” See, also, State v. Horan, 22 Wash. 197, 60 Pac. 135; In re Mathiason Mfg. Co., 122 Mo. App. 437, 99 S. W. 502; People v. Albany & S. R. Co., 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 344; Toledo Traction, Light & Power Co. v. Smith (D. C.), 205 Fed. 643; Weinburgh v. Union, etc., Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 640, 37 Atl. 1026; Cook on Corp. (6th Ed.), section 609.
This construction, adopted, as we have seen, by the trial court, seems reasonable, although there is authority to the contrary. Smith v. Iron Mountain Tunnel Co., 46 Mont. 13, 125 Pac. 649, Ann. Cas. 1914 B, 551.
To hold that a majority of individual stockholders [637]*637was necessary to reach any conclusion where the shares of stock run into thousands might produce inextricable confusion and this under the statute is not done unless called for in the charter or by-laws.
They were nominated by a majority in interest even if it were possible to distinguish between “the same voting power” given in the charter and “equal voting power” mentioned in the addendum, although no such purpose is made plain. Nominations to be made by the preferred stockholders were to be made in accordance with the power to vote which had theretofore rested with them.
Having reached the conclusion that a majority in interest alone was necessary we are to determine if such a majority in fact appears.
At the date of the stockholders’ meeting—February 14, 1933—there were preferred outstanding shares 29,119. There were actually present, in person or by proxy, 28,483 shares. To make any valid nominations approval of 14,560 shares was necessary. Votes so cast amounted to 17,351 shares. It is said that 3,445 shares which belonged [638]*638to petitioner were illegally voted by Mr. Charles E. Plummer, and that 470 shares which belonged to him were illegally voted by Mr. Syme. If this be true, then these directors were not nominated by a majority interest of preferred stockholders. Is it true?
Code, section 3801, declares that as between pledgor and pledgee of stock, pledged to secure a specific loan for a fixed time, the pledgor shall be entitled to the right to vote it unless there is a written agreement to the contrary between pledgor and pledgee.
The Virginia National Bank and the First National Bank of Petersburg were consolidated under the name of First National Bank and Trust Company. Mr. Plummer is its president. Mr. Syme is president of Petersburg Savings and American Trust Company. Prior to this consolidation Mr. Seward transferred to the Virginia National Bank and to the First National Bank of Petersburg as collateral security for loans the preferred stock which he claims was improperly voted by Mr. Plummer under a proxy which he held from his bank. He also for a like reason had transferred to the Petersburg Savings and [639]*639American Trust Company the 470 shares which Mr. Syme voted under power of proxy.
When this stock was first hypothecated Seward retained its voting privilege. Afterwards the banks asked that it be assigned also and it was assigned. This, it is now claimed, was done under duress.
A contract reluctantly entered into by one badly in need of money without force or intimidation and with full knowledge of the fact is not a contract executed under duress. Cary v. Harris, 120 Va. 252, 91 S. E. 166.
In Ford v. Engleman, 118 Va. 89, 86 S. E. 852, it was held that notes executed under a threat to send the maker to the penitentiary for an alleged offense if he refused to sign, were not executed under duress. If we were to concede this to be an extreme case, it is certainly authority for the proposition that duress is not readily accepted as an excuse.
The bank had a right to call the loan and sell the collateral. Petitioner says that in such an event it would [640]*640have been sold for a song and bought in by the bank. Such a course might have worked a hardship upon the debtor and was not adopted by the bank. It took this less drastic step. It asked that there be assigned complete control of the collateral. It may have intended in certain contingencies to use the voting power thus secured for its ovni benefit. If it had such a purpose that purpose was not illegal. When men ask, as they have a right to ask, a complete assignment it is not ordinarily an idle gesture. Some underlying purpose may be presumed.
Relative to the 470 shares voted by Syme it is said that he caused it to be transferred to his bank less than ten days prior to the February meeting and that the same was voted in violation of the provisions of Code, section 3797, as amended by Acts 1928, ch. 456.
Conceding this to be true and with it out, if we count, as we should count, the 3,445 shares voted by Plummer under proxy from his bank these directors were actually [641]*641nominated not only by a majority of the stock present but by a majority of all of the outstanding preferred stock of the company.
Mr. Plummer and Mr. Syme were trustees, and, as we have seen, were officers of their bank. Manifestly there is bitterness of feeling among the stockholders, and the control of this $5,000,000 corporation was a matter of exceeding importance. Their banks were depositories and were anxious to retain its accounts. This, petitioner charges, was impolitic and unwise. It was their duty to serve impartially every interest, and in this instance it is possible that the interest of their banks might not coincide with the interest of the company. They should not have voted to nominate themselves, and should have declined to serve if elected. Their nomination and election should be set aside, and since this is true there should be a new election of all directors. In this new body the names of no one of these trustees should appear. Those elected should be, and no doubt will be, disinterested stockholders who have no interest in banks or in other enterprises which may conflict with the interests of the trunk company.
The order dismissing the petition should be set aside, and this case should remain upon the docket until that election which is here ordered is had.
The decree of the lower court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings to be had in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.