Spivey v. Pugh

215 S.W. 739, 140 Ark. 296, 1919 Ark. LEXIS 165
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 27, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 S.W. 739 (Spivey v. Pugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spivey v. Pugh, 215 S.W. 739, 140 Ark. 296, 1919 Ark. LEXIS 165 (Ark. 1919).

Opinion

WOOD, J.

The appellant, as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, and D. E. Watson, and H. C. Wileoxon, instituted this action in the chancery court of Ashley County, purporting to sue in their own rights and for the use and bénefit of other stockholders, similarly situated, of the Jas. L. Pugh Manuf. Co., a domestic corporation. They alleged that J. E. Spivey and Watson and Wilcoxson were stockholders. All the other stockholders were named defendants.

It was alleged that there was no organized board of directors; that the stockholders who were in charge and in control of the corporate affairs had wrongfully disposed of its assets and wrecked the corporation; that though regularly incorporated and all stock subscriptions paid, no certificates of stock had ever been issued; that there had never been a stockholders’ or directors’ meeting until just prior to the filing of the complaint herein, and after settlement had been demanded by the plaintiff; that plaintiffs were the minority stockholders and not able to get any settlement; that, soon after the incorporation, Jas. L. Pugh, who was then president and principal stockholder, had, on account of ill health, abandoned the affairs of the corporation and had ever since been absent from the State; that on the departure of said Pugh, his brother, Prank N. Pugh, without authority, wrongfully took charge of the business and took possession and control of all its assets and disposed of the same in such manner as to wreck the corporation; that Prank Pugh wrongfully converted the assets and working capital into money,- receiving the sum of $13,264.12; that said Pugh wrongfully used the money thus received to pay the individual debts of Jas'. L. Pugh, for which the corporation was not responsible and also other debts that were otherwise secured, and for which it was not necessary to use the assets of the corporation.

The appellants prayed for an accounting asá for a judgment against Prank N. Pugh for the value of all the' assets of the corporation at the time he took charge and for all deficits occasioned by his wrongful conversion of these assets and for the use and benefit of all the stockholders of the corporation that the business of the cor-, poration be wound up and that the assets be distributed pro rata among them, and for all other and further geip eral equitable relief,

The appellees answered, alleging that plaintiffs Watson and Wilcoxson had dismissed their complaint. The appellees, defendants..below, - further alleged that Jas. L. Pugh and J. R. Spivey, since deceased, were partners in 1913 and 1914, part of the time under the style of Jas. L. Pugh and part of the time as “Pugh Box Company”; that during- the partnership the said Pugh and Spivey borrowed from- the Ashley County Bank $21,000, for which they wefe jointly and severally bound; that in the early part of 1914, the Ashley County Bank failed and its assets and liabilities were taken over by A. B. Banks & Co. That Banks & Co., and Pugh and Spivey took inventory of' all assets of Pugh and Spivey, which amounted to the sum of $10,500; that A. B. Banks & Co. agreed with Pugh and Spivey to take over these assets and to release said Pugh and Spivey from their indebtedness to Ashley County Bank; that Pugh and Spivey were insolvent except as to the above named property mentioned and they decided to incorporate; that on March 11, 1914, steps were taken towards incorporation.

That Pugh and Spivey negotiated with the Farmers Savings Bank & Trust Company to pay to Banks & Co. the amount which it had advanced to them; that J. R. Spivey was present and assisted in the negotiations; that shortly thereafter Jas. L. Pugh, on account of ill-health, was compelled to abandon the business and leave the State; that at this time Pugh and Spivey and the Jas. L. Pugh Manuf. Co. had $5,352.74 worth of lumber, plant and equipment worth $4,000, .and owed various and sundry debts amounting to $10,725; that Spivey was also in bad health and expecting'to die at any time. That Jas. L. Pugh was at all times the general manager of the business; that at-the time of his departure from the State the mill yard was full of green pine logs and there was quite a stock of green pine lumber on the yard; that Frank N. Pugh, for the accommodation and financial good of the parties interested and without compensation, operated said business to the extent of sawing up the logs then on hand and properly stacking and caring for the lumber manufactured; that H. T. Benoit bid and offered the sum of $8,852.74 for the lumber, sawmill, box factory and all other asset's of the Pugh Manuf. Co., which offer was submitted to a meeting at which J. R. Spivey, F. N. Pugh, F. H. Simpson and G. P. George were present and agreed to accept Benoit’s offer.

Appellees further alleged that J. R. Spivey never at any time put any money in the firm of Pugh & Spivey or the Pugh Box Company, nor the Jas. L. Pugh Manufacturing Company; that the latter company was capitalized at $10,000; that Jas. L. Pugh owned the machinery, which he put in at $2,500, and that the machinery put in by J. R. Spivey was old and not worth $2,500; that the balance of the stock was paid in cash by other stockholders for their stock without any idea of realizing any profits therefrom, but contributed the amount of cash for the sole purpose of enabling the Jas. L. Pugh Manuf. Co. to keep going and to continue giving employment to the laboring people of the town; that Jas. L. Pugh and J. R. Spivey were insolvent before the incorporation and on account of the ill health of both, the corporation was wrecked, to the consequent loss of all who were financially interested therein.

The appellant replied, denying all the allegations of the answer and setting np that many of the items charged by Frank N. Pugh were payments of the personal indebtedness of Jas. L. Pugh, for which the corporation was -not responsible. She further alleged that Jas. L. Pugh was the owner of a large tract of land from which Frank Pugh had cut and sold timber and converted the proceeds to his own use and.that this land and the proceeds from this timber should be subjected to .appellant’s claim; she alleged that Frank Pugh be held as trustee of all the sums that had come into his hands as the pro ceeds of the property of Jas. L. Pugh.

Appellant prayed for the appointment of a master, who should take testimony and state an account of all the matters set forth in the pleadings and that on the final hearing she be g’ranted the relief for which she originally prayed.

It will be observed that, although the action was begun by the appellant, as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband and the other stockholders, against the appellee, Frank N. Pugh and other stockholders, alleging that those who were in charge of the Jas. L. Pugh Manuf. Co. had wrongfully disposed of all the assets of the corporation, the complaint further alleged that there had never been a stockholders’ or directors’ meeting until appellant had demanded a settlement of Frank N. Pugh.

There is an allegation that, shortly after the incorporation, Jas. L. Pugh had, without authority, assumed entire charge and control of the affairs of the corporation, but that because of ill health he had abandoned the business of the corporation and had left the State.

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

Related

England Loan Company v. Campbell
35 S.W.2d 75 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 S.W. 739, 140 Ark. 296, 1919 Ark. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spivey-v-pugh-ark-1919.