Ward v. Davidson

89 Mo. 445
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 89 Mo. 445 (Ward v. Davidson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward v. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445 (Mo. 1886).

Opinion

Black, J.

The plaintiffs, who are a minority of the -stockholders of the KeoEuk’Northern Line PackefCoinpany, bring this suit against five out . of the nine directors, and~against Peyton S. -Davidson, who was the superiñteñdent of the company, and also make the corporation. a defendant for the reason, as alleged, that it is in the control of the other defendants. The petition in'its general scope charges the defendants with having engaged the corporation in ventures foreign to its corporate powers, and alleges that they have abused their trusts as officers, and have used the money, property and, credit of the corporation for their private gain and [452]*452emolument. There was a general finding of the issues for the plaintiffs, and a special finding that the defendants had been guilty of misconduct as directors and officers. The corporation and its agents were enjoined from dealing in boat stores not needed for the use of the company’s boats ; from dealing in grain with Sheather or others, and from loaning its credit or money to-William F. Davidson or others. The defendants were removed from their offices, an election of other directors was ordered,, and the property of the corporation put into the hands of a receiver. Money decrees were entered in favor of the corporation and against the defendants in various amounts. The case is here upon cross-appeals. The proceeding, it may be added, is based upon section 948, Revised Statutes. The questions presented are mostly issues of fact, and as the record consists of over sixteen hundred pages of printed matter we shall, in many instances, state conclusions only.

The Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company was incorporated early in 1873, by the consolidation of three rival companies. The property of the old companies was put in at an appraised value, thus g’ivjng the new corporation a capital stock of $751,000. The principal offices were at first divided among members of the old companies. McCune, the president, died in 1874, when his representatives, contrary to an agreement existing between the stockholders of two of the old companies, sold their stock to W. F. Davidson. This gave him and those acting with him a majority of the stock and the control of the affairs of the corporation. A hostility previously existing between some of the parties was in nowise allayed by the combination of property and interests. The minority stockholders, from 1875 to the trial of this cause, elected four directors and the majority five. In 1875 the corporation was out of debt, and had on hand seventy-five thousand dollars in cash or its equiv[453]*453alent. In 1878 it was in debt ninety thousand dollars and over. The property in the meantime decreased in value and quantity nearly if not quite one-half. This contrast between the McCune and the present administration is constantly pressed upon our attention, and is entitled to a fair consideration. But it must be remembered that the cash on hand was at once paid out by way of a dividend, being the first and only one ever paid ; that the boats of the company, save two new ones built at a large expense, were those which came from the old companies, had been in use a long time and required expensive repairs. The average life of a steamboat, it is said, is from seven to ten years. The receipts of the company were on the constant decline, and this is nowhere more marked than in the McCune administration. This was doubtless due, in a great measure, to the competition, and especially that created by the construction of railroad lines to and from the principal points on the river. We must, therefore, be guided by the more specific evidence. The officers ■do not guarantee that the corporation will make money.

1. William P. Davidson was elected president in April, 1875, and continued to hold that office to the trial of this cause. The salary of the office had been, and was then fixed at four thousand dollars per annum. In October, of that year, he took a credit in his account on the books for forty-five hundred dollars, salary for the eight months and some days, being $1,555.55 in excess of the amount to which he was entitled. The matter came before the board of directors in April, 1876, when amotion to charge him with the excess was lost, four directors voting for, and four against it. But on the next day a resolution ratifying the credit as it stood was carried, four directors voting against and five for it, William P. Davidson being one of the five, and without whose vote the resolution could not have been adopted. The salary for 1876 and subsequent years remained, and indeed, was again fixed at four thousand dollars. Notwithstanding [454]*454this he had himself credited with a salary of five thous- and dollars per annum for the years 1876, 1877, and 1878. The only excuse offered for this is that he refused to work for four thousand dollars. But the director’s had a right to, and did fix the compensation, and he agreed to that and the amount thus fixed, by the act of accepting the office. As to the excess for 1875, he’ had no right to it, and he could not create a right by his own vote. He could not at the same time, and in the same-matter, act for himself and the corporation of which he was agent and trustee, being both a director and president. The attempted ratification thus brought about by his own vote was of no validity. It was a void act. Butts v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 318; Jones v. Morrison, 31 Minn. 148. There is no claim of a ratification for the other years save by acquiescence, and it is shown that four of the directors at all times denied his right ta these credits.

Complaint was also made because of a credit taken of one thousand dollars in one item, for traveling expenses in 1875, and in January following the stockholders passed a resolution requiring the officers and others traveling for the company to render a detailed statement of the expenses, and the directors also made an order that the secretary should not pay traveling, expenses of any officer without an itemized account approved by the executive committee. Still, in December 1876, the president directed a credit to himself for one thousand dollars, for traveling expenses, without a detailed account or even the approval of the committee. Though complaints were again made, the previous order of the directors was not complied with, and this item was not even shown to be correct on the trial of the cause. It follows that William P. Davidson must be charged. with the excess received on salary account, including the year 1875, and subsequent years, and the one thous- and dollars alleged traveling expenses credited to him in [455]*4551876. The amended petition upon which the issues were made and tried states that the breaches of trust complained of were then still continued. In equity practice amendments to bills generally related to matters existing at the time of filing the first bill, and matters occurring thereafter were brought upon the record by supplemental bill. 2 Dan. Oh. Plead, and Pr. [5 Ed.] 1516, and notes. Our practice act recognizes the right to bring before the court matters arising after the filing of the petition. Secs. 3535, 3573, R. S. The amended or supplemental petition must set forth all the facts, so that there will be but one pleading. Section 3576. The new matter here pleaded simply enlarged the extent of the relief,' by stating a continuation of the same wrong, and was proper supplemental matter. Story Eq. Plead., sec. 336; Jaques v. Hall, 3 Gray, 194. The accounting, in respect of salaries, will go to the date of filing the amended and supplemental petition. Beyond that we are not asked to go.

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

Related

Zakibe v. Ahrens & McCarron, Inc.
28 S.W.3d 373 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
Koplar v. Rosset
214 S.W.2d 417 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1948)
Pouzzner v. Westerly Theatre Operating Co.
67 F. Supp. 874 (D. Rhode Island, 1946)
State Ex Rel. Brickey v. Nolte
169 S.W.2d 50 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
McFall v. Murray
117 S.W.2d 330 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1938)
Karns v. Industrial Commission
73 P.2d 104 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1937)
Monterey Water Co. v. Voorhees
43 P.2d 196 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1935)
Irwin v. Burgan
28 S.W.2d 1017 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Backus v. Finkelstein
23 F.2d 357 (D. Minnesota, 1927)
Kansas City v. Mullins
209 S.W. 558 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1919)
Bush v. Block
187 S.W. 153 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1916)
Albright v. Albright
157 P. 662 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1916)
State v. Business Men's Club
163 S.W. 901 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Lyons v. Corder
162 S.W. 606 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Central Manufacturing Co. v. Montgomery
129 S.W. 460 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Ritchie v. People's Telephone Co.
119 N.W. 990 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1909)
Steele v. Gold Fissure Gold Mining Co.
42 Colo. 529 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1908)
Schaffhauser v. Arnholt & Schaefer Brewing Co.
67 A. 417 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Red Diamond Clothing Co. v. Steidemann
97 S.W. 220 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
McCourt v. Singers-Bigger
145 F. 103 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 Mo. 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-davidson-mo-1886.