Williams v. Green Bay & Western R.

147 F.2d 777, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2195
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 9, 1945
DocketNo. 207
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 147 F.2d 777 (Williams v. Green Bay & Western R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Green Bay & Western R., 147 F.2d 777, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2195 (2d Cir. 1945).

Opinions

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Brought by appellants on behalf of themselves and other holders of Class B deben[778]*778tures1 against appellee, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Wisconsin, the suit sought judgment for $809,618.85 alleged to belong to the holders of the debentures as their share of the undistributed and withheld net earnings of defendant for the years 1924 to 1943, inclusive. It was alleged that the debentures constituted a fixed and binding contract for the appropriation and payment to the holdr ers, of the net earnings; that the provision 2 requiring action by the directors was a mere formality; that during the years in question the net earnings applicable to Class B debentures had aggregated $1,649,618.15; that though in each year ex[779]*779cept the years 1932, 1933 and 1934, the defendant had distributed part of the applicable net earnings in the aggregate sum of $840,000, it had in each year withheld portions thereof and passed them to surplus; and that such sums, so wrongfully passed to surplus instead of being paid on the debentures, now aggregated the sum for which plaintiffs sued.

The defendant met the suit with two motions to dismiss. In one of them, the ground taken was lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant for want of proper service on it. In the other it was that, in the exercise of a sound discretion, jurisdiction of the action should not be assumed because its subject matter was concerned with the internal affairs of a corporation foreign to the state of suit.

Affidavits and counter affidavits having been filed and heard on the motions, the district judge, holding that the defendant was present in the district and was properly served, denied the first motion. Of the opinion though that the suit concerned the internal affairs of the defendant corporation and could be better tried in Wisconsin, the state of its incorporation, the district judge, on the authority of Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co., 288 U.S. 123, 53 S.Ct. 295, 77 L.Ed. 652, 89 A.L.R. 720; Cohn v. Mishkoff-Costello Co., 256 N.Y. 102, 175 N.E. 529; Cohen v. American Window Glass Co., 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 111, exercised his discretion to dismiss the suit without prejudice to its being renewed in Wisconsin.

Appellants are here insisting that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, on which the dismissal was based, was not properly applied, that discretion was abused in dismissing the suit, and, because it was, the judgment must be reversed. We do not think so.

If we could agree with appellants’ assumption that the suit involved nothing except a claim upon a liquidated demand, that in short the contract of the Class B debentures operated of itself to set apart and appropriate each year to those debentures ■the specific sums plaintiffs sue for, and that the fixing and declaration of the amounts by the Directors was a mere formality, we should agree that jurisdiction ought not to have been declined. But we think it clear that this is an over-simplified view of what the debentures intended to, and did, provide. The provision for declaration and payment of sums due annually under the debentures, as well as the long continued practice under it for the many years in question, leave in no doubt, we think, that before any sums became due and payable under the debentures, corporate action had to be taken to fix and determine them. Instead of carrying a fixed rate of interest, the debentures promised, in lieu thereof, a contingent portion of the annual net earnings, this interest to- be ascertained, fixed and declared in each year by the directors. According to the claim, the directors in each of the years but three fixed and declared, and the appellee paid the amounts determined to be due. If, therefore, support were needed for the view that the provision in the debentures, that the sums, if any, due were to be fixed and declared by the directors, meant just that, the long practise in accordance therewith and the long acquiescence of the debenture holders in that practise would provide it. The question before us is not one of jurisdiction but one of the exercise of judgment as to which would be the most convenient forum. In the circumstances this case provides, it seems quite clear to us that in declining jurisdiction and remitting the parties to that of Wisconsin, where both corporation and directors can be sued and all matters governing the rights of the corporation and the holders of its securities can be determined under the laws of that state, the court used, it did not abuse, its discretion. Its order dismissing the action without prejudice to the right to renew it in Wisconsin is accordingly affirmed.

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

Related

Eliasen v. Green Bay & Western Railroad
569 F. Supp. 84 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1982)
Sioux Falls Post No. 15 v. Williamson
41 N.W.2d 647 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1950)
Williams v. Green Bay & W. R. Co.
68 F. Supp. 509 (S.D. New York, 1946)
Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co.
153 F.2d 888 (Second Circuit, 1946)
Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corporation
153 F.2d 883 (Second Circuit, 1946)
Williams v. Green Bay & Western Railroad
326 U.S. 549 (Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 F.2d 777, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-green-bay-western-r-ca2-1945.