Waguespack v. Clesi

129 So. 537, 170 La. 941, 1930 La. LEXIS 1846
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 2, 1930
DocketNo. 29676.
StatusPublished

This text of 129 So. 537 (Waguespack v. Clesi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waguespack v. Clesi, 129 So. 537, 170 La. 941, 1930 La. LEXIS 1846 (La. 1930).

Opinion

LAND, J.

In April, 1922, Ferducy J. Waguespack, Nicholas J. Clesi, and Alfred J. Commagere entered into an agreement to purchase, subdivide, and develop a tract of land in the city of New Orleans, and to share equally in the profits to be derived from the sale of the' property. On or about May 9, 1922, this agreement was reduced to writing and signed by all of the contracting parties.

The purport of the agreement was that Waguespack would advance the money -necessary to bind the sale of the property, that a corporation would be organized to take over the property, and that Waguespack, Clesi, and. Commagere would acquire in-equal proportions of one-third each the stock of the corporation, and thus share equally in the profits to flow from the transaction.

Waguespack advanced the sum necessary to bind the sale. A corporation was duly organized under the name of the Realty Development Company Inc., and was capitalized at $5,000, or 50 shares at $100 each. Waguespack subscribed to 48 shares, and Clesi and Commagere to 1 share each.

*944 Subsequently, Waguespack transferred to Olesi and Commagere a sufficient number of shares to give to each sixteen and two-thirds shares, in pursuance of the agreement between them. The name of the corporation was changed later to the Guaranty Realty Company, Inc.

The property in question was sold and transferred by the Orleans Anti-Tuberculosis League to the Realty Development Company, Inc.

In promoting thé corporation and financing the sale and transfer of the property, Waguespack invested $25,000.

It is alleged by Waguespack:

That, in the latter part of September, 1922, he was advised by his associates that the entire enterprise was in danger of collapsing, with a total loss to each of them of the money which had been invested, unless additional capital could be secured, and that the amount needed would be between twenty and twenty-five thousand dollars.

That petitioner was informed by his associates that they had found a fourth party who would furnish the company with necessary funds for financing, provided that each of them in the company would sell out to this party, who was willing to reimburse to each the amount then actually invested by him, and provided that the entire ownership, control, and profits ■ of the company should be turned over to this party.

That the individual named by his associates was entirely ignorant of the use of his name in said connection, and that the entire .conduct'of his associates was in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud petitioner of his share in the profits.

That, in ignorance of the fraud and conspiracy thus being practiced upon him, and relying upon the false representations thus made by his associates, and fearing to lose the $25,000 which he had already invested in the enterprise, petitioner on the 7th day of October, 1922, was induced to enter into an agreement by authentic act, by the terms of which he was to be paid back $25,000 at the rate of $1,000 per month, with 7 per cent, interest.

That each payment of $1,000, made to petitioner monthly by his associates, was made under the representation that the money was being furnished by the fourth individual, when, in truth and in fact, these payments were made by his associates out of the sales of lots into which the property had been subdivided, and that the proceeds of these sales would have been partly petitioner’s own money, had it not been for the fraudulent scheme on the part of his associates to induce petitioner to sign away his right and interest in said company.

That during all of this period the associates of petitioner informed him that they also had been bought out by this fourth party, who was advancing all of the money necessary for the further development of the company’s tract of land, and who would receive all of the profits growing out of the transaction ; but that, so complete was the faith and confidence of petitioner in the honesty, integrity, and fairness of his associates, his partners in the enterprise, that he accepted as true every statement made to him, and acted throughout on their advice and upon their suggestions in signing the agreement in question.

That the company disposed of all of the lots into which the property had been subdivided, and the total profits realized by the company out of the subdivision and sale amounted to $75,000, in which petitioner would have participated to the extent of one-third, or in the sum of $25,000, but for the fraudulent scheme *946 and conspiracy upon the part of his associates.

Petitioner avers that he remained in complete ignorance of the fraud that had been practiced upon him until the 15th day of October, 1927, when, in conversation with the individual whose name his associates had used as the fourth party, petitioner learned that this party was in utter ignorance that his name had been used in the transaction, and that said party had never had any interest in the property in question.

Petitioner prays for judgment against Nicholas J. Clesi in the sum of $25,000, with legal interest from judicial demand, and alleges that Alfred J. Oommagere has left the state, and is now residing in the state of California, and that petitioner is unable to make Oommagere a party to this suit.

From a judgment rejecting his demands, petitioner has appealed.

Defendant denies the allegations of fraud made against him. In fact, these allegations are utterly inconsistent with the terms of the agreement entered into by petitioner on October 7, 1922, with the Realty Development Company, represented by Alfred J. Commagere, vice president. In this agreement, it is acknowledged in a notarial act that said company is indebted to petitioner in the sum of $25,000, to be liquidated by said company in monthly payments of $1,000; the first payment to be made on December 1, 1922, with 7 per cent, per annum interest on the amount paid from October 1,1922, to date of payment, with like amount of $1,000 to be paid each thirty days thereafter, with like interest on the amount paid from date, October 1, 1922, to date of payment.

In other words, the agreement of October 7, 1922, was a sale made by petitioner direct to the Realty Development Company of all of his interest in that company for the sum of $25,000, every cent of which petitioner admits- that he has received.

Neither the defendant, Clesi, nor Alfred J. Oommagere, pretended in this agreement to sell any of their interest in the company to the company, or to any one else. Nor did John Alonzo Woodville, the alleged fourth party, intervene in this agreement to accept the sale, and to bind himself for the payment of the purchase price of $25,000.

It is inconceivable that a reasonable man would sign an agreement of this character if, as a matter of fact and truth, he had looked to a fourth party for the payment of the entire purchase price.

It is still more incomprehensible that a reasonable man would not have investigated the truth of the alleged statement that Woodville was the party buying out the interest of all of the stockholders, and furnishing the funds for this purpose.

Petitioner admits that he made no such investigation.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 So. 537, 170 La. 941, 1930 La. LEXIS 1846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waguespack-v-clesi-la-1930.