Strouse v. Sylvester

66 P. 660, 6 Cal. Unrep. 798, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1241
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 8, 1901
DocketS. F. No. 1834
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 P. 660 (Strouse v. Sylvester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strouse v. Sylvester, 66 P. 660, 6 Cal. Unrep. 798, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1241 (Cal. 1901).

Opinion

HAYNES, C.

This action was brought by Mark Strouse, a director, and twelve others, stockholders in the Gold Ridge Consolidated Mining and Milling Company, against said corporation and Henry Sylvester, Albert J. Sylvester, William F. McLaughlin and Ira H. Chapman, who, with plaintiff Strouse, constituted the board of directors of said corporation. Said Mark Strouse having died, after judgment his executrix was substituted as plaintiff. A demand was duly made upon the board of directors to bring the action, and, the board having refused to do so, the action is prosecuted by the plaintiffs for the benefit of the corporation. No question is made as to their right to do so. The plaintiffs had findings and judgment, and defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

No question is made as to the rulings of the court during the progress of the trial. There is no appeal from the judgment, and hence the sufficiency of the findings to support it cannot be considered. Some question is made by appellant as to the conclusions of law, but upon an appeal from an order denying a new trial the conclusions of law are not reviewable: Bode v. Lee, 102 Cal. 586, 36 Pac. 936; Owens v. Water Co., 131 Cal. 530, 63 Pac. 850, 64 Pac. 253. The only question, therefore, is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings. The Gold Ridge Consolidated Mining Company was incorporated and organized in January, 1894. Its capital stock consisted of 100,000 shares, of the par value of $100 each. It owned several mining claims in Nevada county, in this state, which then, and at the time this case was tried in the court below, were only partially developed, and were wholly unproductive. With the excep[800]*800tion of 15,000 shares of treasury stock, sold at ten cents per share, it had no resources wherewith to meet its obligations other than assessments upon its capital stock. Prior to 1896 neither of the directors named as defendants in this action had served as directors of said corporation. In 1896 the regular time for holding the stockholders’ meeting for the election of directors was May 14th. On May 4, 1896, the defendant Henry Sylvester owned 17,073 shares of said stock, one Phelan owned 19,000 shares, and one Lillie owned 15,205 shares, and on that day these three stockholders entered into a contract by which Phelan and Lillie were to transfer their said stock to said Henry Sylvester, he to vote and control the same for all purposes for the term of four years, but without the power of sale. These shares aggregated 51,278, a majority of the whole, and gave him the power to control absolutely, for that time, all elections of directors. On May 12th, Phelan and Lillie surrendered their stock to Sylvester, and a new certificate was issued to him therefor, and on that day he caused to be issued of his own stock five shares to each of the defendants» McLaughlin, A. J. Sylvester and Ira H. Chapman. Prior to this neither of the three owned any stock in said corporation, nor has either of them since acquired any other shares therein. The annual meeting for the election of directors was to have been held the second day after said shares were issued to said last-named defendants, but it was postponed until June 4th, and was held on that day, and resulted in the election of Mark Strouse (one of the plaintiffs) and B. P. Bicker, members of the preceding board, and the defendants Henry Sylvester, his brother, A. J. Sylvester, and W. P. McLaughlin, and on the same day the board organized by the election of Henry Sylvester as president, McLaughlin as secretary and treasurer, and A. J. Sylvester vice-president. On August 4th, at a meeting of the board, on the motion of A. J. Sylvester, Bicker was removed from the board on the ground that no shares were standing in his name on the books, and Ira PI. Chapman was elected in his place, and, being present, immediately took his seat. At the same meeting, on motion of A. J. Sylvester, seconded by McLaughlin, it was ordered that the president receive a salary of $250 per month, beginning from that date, and on motion by Chapman it was ordered that McLaughlin receive [801]*801from that date a salary of $250 per month, the minutes showing that both motions were carried unanimously. At a later date, as shown by the testimony of Mr. Nichol, the words, in the first case, “Dr. H. Sylvester not voting,” and in the second case, “Wm. F. McLaughlin not voting,” were interlined. Prior to these proceedings an assessment (No. 4) became delinquent, and after one or more postponements the sale of delinquent stock took place September 30, 1896, and Henry Sylvester bid the amount of the assessment and costs on 21,310 shares thereof (amounting to $549.75) therefor, and the same were struck off to him. The amount of the assessment upon his own stock (17,073 shares), amounting to $426.82, he claimed to have paid. • The complaint charged that he made it falsely to appear from the books that he paid the assessment upon his own shares, and that he also paid the amount of his bid for the said 21,310 shares; and the court found that he did not pay the assessment upon his own stock, nor his bid upon the 21,310 shares, nor any part of either. It was further found by the court, in substance, that the five shares transferred by Henry Sylvester severally to McLaughlin, Chapman and A. J. Sylvester was a gift to them for the purpose of qualifying them to become directors; that McLaughlin was in the employment of Henry Sylvester on a salary and certain commissions on business brought by him to Henry Sylvester in his profession, both being dentists; that Chapman, also a dentist, was a friend and a former student in his office, and A. J. Sylvester was his brother; that the salary voted for the president and for the secretary and treasurer of $250 per month to each was for the purpose of defrauding the corporation and the other stockholders; that in the adoption of these resolutions giving the president and secretary each a salary both participated, and that they were not passed in good faith and for the benefit of the corporation; that the resolution giving the secretary and treasurer a salary of $250 per month was not passed for his benefit, but for the benefit of the president, giving him, in effect, $500 per month.

We think the evidence sustains these findings. McLaughlin testified that he received $500 out of the treasury; that he took it himself out of what came in; that he took $250 on two different occasions; that he did not remember what [802]*802he did with this $500; that he gave no part of it to the president that he remembered; that he received this $500 in gold and silver; that the money he took to pay himself came from the assessment (No. 4); that he thought there was no money on hand before the sale, which took place September 30th. A little later he testified that he drew $250 on September 28th, and $250 on October 2d, and that he could not tell what became of the money, and that the president drew $250 at the same time he did. McLaughlin further testified that the assessment upon Dr. Sylvester’s stock was not paid in cash; that it was offset against the salary of the president and secretary, and that the first $250 of his salary went toward paying assessment No.

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

Related

Crocker v. Cumberland Mining & Milling Co.
139 N.W. 783 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)
Boothe v. Summit Coal Mining Co.
104 P. 207 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 P. 660, 6 Cal. Unrep. 798, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strouse-v-sylvester-cal-1901.