Sutton v. Bunnell

167 N.E. 731, 91 Ind. App. 427, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 408
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 12, 1929
DocketNo. 12,764.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 N.E. 731 (Sutton v. Bunnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sutton v. Bunnell, 167 N.E. 731, 91 Ind. App. 427, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Enloe, J.

This action was brought by Jacob .H. Fulwider against Emmit J. Sutton, Edwin Brown, Chalmers McGaughey, David Brookie, Walter L. Brown, Victor Smock, Wallace G. Himmelwright, James B. Wilson, Sterling Falloon, Fred W. Shideler, George A. H. Shideler, John C. Henderson, Fielden Morin, Thomas E. Evans and Walter C. Kimler, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of fraud, alleged to have been practiced upon' him, in the sale of certain corporation stocks. Pending the determination of the cause in the court below, said Jacob H. Fulwider died, and upon motion duly made in that behalf, his executors, Leota Bunnell, Walter A. Fulwider and Benjamin F. Fulwider, were substituted as plaintiffs herein.

The cause being at issue, and coming on for trial before the court, a special finding of facts and a statement of conclusions of law were requested, and thereupon the court found the facts specially and stated conclusions of law favorable to said plaintiffs. From the judgment *431 rendered upon the conclusions of law stated, this appeal is prosecuted. Appellants Sutton and Kimler have assigned error as to the conclusions of law stated, error in overruling their joint and several motions for a venire de novo, error in overruling their motion for a new trial, and error in amending the finding of facts as originally found and stated by the court, and also the amending of conclusions of law stated thereon. The appellants, Walter L. Brown, Victor Smock and Wallace G. Himmelwright have jointly and severally, in substance, assigned the same errors. Appellant Chalmers R. McGaughey, individually, and appellant Edwin Brown, individually, have assigned substantially the same errors, thus making, in effect, four separate appeals.

The controlling facts as found by the court are, in substance, as follows: For several years prior to July, 1917, Standard Brick Company, an Indiana corporation, with a capital stock of $250,000, was operating a plant for the making of brick near Crawfordsville, Indiana, and was manufacturing “smooth pressed brick”; that said corporation owned 10 acres of land on which its plant was situated;’that, about the year 1912, defendant Edwin M. Brown became interested in the shale deposits about Crawfordsville, and began acquiring stock of said company; said Brown also succeeded in interesting one P. C. Somerville, a banker of Crawfordsville, in said matter, and these two acquired a controlling interest in the stock of said company, and employed one J. R. Thomas to take charge of said plant and its operation; that some enlargements and improvements were made, and in October, 1915, through and by the intercession of said Brown, Fred Coulter of Frankfort, Indiana, was induced to purchase the interest of said Somerville in said company, the same being 355 shares of its corporate stock; that said Coulter, in turn, interested Walter L. Brown, Victor Smock and Wallace G. Himmelwright, *432 citizens of Frankfort, Indiana, in said company, and induced each of said parties, who were then and theretofore business associates of said Coulter in other enterprises, to purchase, at a price of $6,000 to each, one-fourth of the shares of stock held by him.

The court also found that, at the time said Walter L. Brcrwn, Smock and Himmelwright purchased their said stock, the plant of Standard Brick Company was in a run-down and depleted condition, and was able to make as a maximum, only 1,000,000 brick per year; thereafter, said Walter L. Brown, Victor Smock and Wallace G. Himmelwright became interested in said company, and along with Coulter and Edwin M. Brown they proceeded to purchase new machinery and rebuild said plant, and to place it in a condition in which it could make from 10 to 15 million brick per year.

It was also found that said Coulter was a prominent and successful business man of Frankfort, Indiana; that he was a man of great wealth, and connected with various important enterprises in the city of Frankfort and other places, and that his judgment was at all times relied upon by his associates in the brick enterprise at Crawfordsville; that he investigated said brick enterprise and the persons connected therewith before purchasing the stock of said company, and at all times, to the time of his death, had great faith therein and in its possibilities, and believed and repeatedly stated to his associates that the said shale lands were of wonderful value, and that they would be able to make a tremendous success of the enterprise; that he urged his associates to acquire more shale lands for the company, asserting his belief that, in time, these holdings would prove to be of very great value; that, after Coulter acquired his stock, he was at once made a director and then president of said company; that in January, 1916, Walter L. Brown became a director, and, in 1917, Victor Smock was chosen *433 as one of the directors, Edwin M. Brown being at all times after he acquired his stock in 1912, up until said company was dissolved, one of the directors thereof; that said Coulter was a director from the time he acquired stock in 1915 until his death in 1917, and his associates, in Frankfort, entrusted to him all the details of the management of their interests in said corporation.

The court further found that, after said J. R. Thomas became the manager of said plant, he succeeded in enlarging it and in getting the daily production of brick up to 50,000; that, during this time, extensive and expensive machinery was added, the building enlarged, additional kilns built, and the output increased to approximately 15,000,000 brick per year; that, to accomplish this result, Edwin M. Brown, Walter L. Brown, Fred Coulter, Victor Smock and Wallace G. Himmelwright, severally, advanced money to the said corporation in the aggregate of many thousands of dollars; that, in the meantime, the production was changed from the smooth brick to the rough or “mat face” brick, which was more salable, and that new and heavier machinery was added so that paving brick might also be manufactured.

The court also found that the plant of said corporation was located on the east side of the Monon railway, and that the bulk of the shale lands owned by said company was on the west side of said railway and not convenient for operation by said plant; that Thomas, as manager, urged a further enlargement of the said plant so as to obtain volume of production at a greater profit; that an engineer was obtained, who submitted plans for a complementary or supplemental unit to the south of their existing plant, at a cost of about $100,000, and which supplemental unit would have doubled the production of the plant, but this matter was abandoned because of the disadvantages arising from the location of the plant *434 with reference to shale lands owned; that, as early as 1916, Thomas suggested to Edwin M. Brown that the company should acquire additional shale lands for its production requirements, and also for the purpose of preventing such lands near the plant from falling into the hands of competitors; that, on October 26, 1916, Edwin M. Brown, without the knowledge of any of his associates, purchased the land known as “the Everson farm,” consisting of 130.6 acres, and surrounding the plant of said company, for the sum of $13,400.

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

Related

Vernon Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Sharp
349 N.E.2d 173 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 N.E. 731, 91 Ind. App. 427, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-bunnell-indctapp-1929.