Majority
p. 29PONDIR v. N. Y., LAKE ERIE, ETC., R. R. CO. N. Y. Supreme Court, General Term, First Department, October, 1893.
Headnote
1. Corporations.] Where a corporation, holding the majority of the stock of another corporation, elected the directors of the latter
p. 30
corporation and through them acquired its property for an entirely inadequate consideration,—held, that such transaction was a fraud upon the despoiled corporation and its stockholders, and should be set aside and the parties thereto compelled to account.
2. The same; stockholders.] In such a case the stockholders of the despoiled corporation may maintain an action to redress the wrong, if their corporation after notice neglects to bring such action, especially if such corporation remains under the control of those who must be made defendants in the suit, so that any application to it would be unavailing.
.3. Parties.l Although, in such a case, if it is sought to set aside the deed and subsequent conveyances and liens, the subsequent grantees and holders of the liens, are necessary parties, yet without such parties, an action may be maintained to compel the parties to the fraud, and those who subsequently aided in its consummation, to account as trustees ex maléfico for whatever they have received through the wrongs committed.
4. The same.\ To such an action, corporations (being subsequent grantees), whose stock is entirely held by the defendant corporation which received the property, are not on any ground necessary parties.
5. Receiver.] ' A receiver of a corporation, although he has accounted and been dischargéd, may be compelled, by the par- ' ties entitled to property which had been fraudulently'acquired by the corporation, to account for what he has received from such property, unless his account to the court was so stated as to constitute a defense to such an action.
•6. Pleadt7igl\ When a defect of parties defendant is not pleaded, and the necessity for other parties to the action appears on the trial, the plaintiff not being guilty of laches, the suit should not be dismissed, but ordered to stand over on proper terms to enable plaintiff to bring the necessary parties before the court.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, first district, dismissing the complaint after a trial upon the merits.
This action was .brought by John Pondir, a stockholder of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Co., against the N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Co., and Hugh J.
p. 31
Jewett, receiver of the Erie Railway Co., to set aside a lease of the property of the Buffalo, Bradford and Pittsburgh Railroad Co. to the Erie Railway Co., and a mortgage executed by the latter corporation on the leasehold, ■and to compel defendants, the N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., and Hugh J. Jewett, as receiver of the Erie Railway Co., to account and pay over to Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh R. R. Co., all profits and benefits received by them respectively from the property of the latter corporation while in their possession ; and also to restrain the defendant, the N. Y., Lake Erie & Western Railway, from voting on the stock of the Buffalo, Bradford, etc., R. R. Co., held by it.
The following facts are alleged in the complaint and ■admitted by the answers, or are found by the court and •are not challenged by the appellant’s requests or exceptions, or appear on the record and are uncontradicted :
The Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company was incorporated in 1857, under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with a capital stock of $950,000, divided into 9,500 shares, of the par value of $100 each, but its ■capital, under a provision in its charter, was afterwards •from time to time increased, so that July 27, 1869, it consisted of 28,864 shares, of the par value of $100 each. The first day of January, 1865, it mortgaged its property and franchises to Dorman B. Eaton, as trustee, to secure the payment of two thousand bonds of $1,000 each, aggregating two million dollars. From 1861 until December 25, 1879, the Erie Railway Company was a corporation, incorporated and existing under the laws of New York.
January 5, 1866, the Buffalo, Bradford and Pittsburgh Railroad Company, as party of the first part, and the Erie Railway Company, as party of the second part, entered into a lease, by which the former leased to the latter for 499 years, from January 1, 1866, its railroad and its land, except the following : “ Excepting and reserving, how-ever, unto the party of the first part all the oil underlying'
p. 32
the demised premises, or any part thereof, with the right to them, their successors or assigns, to enter upon said, premises or any part thereof, to excavate and bore for the said oil, and to erect all the usual structures for raising,, receiving, storing, getting ready for markét, and taking away and forwarding such oil, and to occupy any part of the demised premises for said purposes, without interfering, however, with the use of the same by the party of the second part as a railroad; and the party of the second part to transport said oil at usual and reasonable rates.”
By this lease the lessee agreed to pay all taxes assessed on the corporation in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, and the interest on the mortgage bonds issued under the mortgage January i, 1865, and also the principal of the bonds when they should mature. No other-rent was agreed to be paid.
The land reserved embraced about eight thousand acres, situated in the county of McKean, in Pennsylvania. When the lease was executed, the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company had twelve directors, three of whom were directors of the Erie Railway Company,., one of whom, Robert H. Burdell, being its president, and another, John Arnot, being the vice-president of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company, and at this date the Erie Railway Company held 21,875 of the 22,864 shares then outstanding in the Buffalo, Bradford &■ Pittsburgh Railroad Company, leaving 989 shares owned by others.
September 1, 1870, the Erie Railway Company executed a mortgage on the demised property and other-property to the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company tO' secure the payment of certain bonds, and on February 4, 1874, it executed a second consolidated mortgage on the demised property and other property to said trust company to secure the payment of thirty million dollars in bonds. In 1875 the trust company brought an action to foreclose the mortgage of February 4, 1874 (to which.
p. 33
action the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company was not a party), in which a judgment of foreclosure and sale was afterwards entered. Hugh J. Jewett was appointed a receiver in this action.
In 1875 the People of the State of New York brought an action to dissolve the Erie Railway Company, because of its alleged insolvency, and May 26, 1875, Hugh J„ Jewett was appointed a receiver in that action of all the property of the corporation, which action resulted in a judgment entered November 25, 1879, dissolving the corporation, and Jewett was continued as receiver until December 30, 1879, when, having turned over the property to the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, he was discharged as receiver.
April 4, 1875, the plaintiff purchased, and has ever since owned, fifty shares of the capital stock of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company.
December 30, 1876, the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company conveyed the lands and interests excepted from the lease to the Northwestern Mining & Exchange Company (a Pennsylvania corporation) for the recited consideration of $40,000, but no consideration for this conveyance has been, in fact, paid by the grantee to the grantor. At the date of this conveyance six of the thirteen directors of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company were directors of the Erie Railway Company, and since the execution of the lease, the Erie Railway Company and its receiver, and the New York) Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, by virtue of their ownership of a large majority of the shares of the-Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company, have-named and elected such directors as those corporations, chose for the lessee company.
On December 30, 1876, the Northwestern Mining & Exchange Company, as party of the first part, entered! into a contract in the nature of a lease with H. L. Taylor & Co., as party of the second part, by which the lands
p. 34
conveyed, as aforesaid, and other lands, were leased for twenty years to the party of the second part, for the purpose of procuring oil and gas therefrom. The rent or compensation payable was a percentage of the oil and gas that might be produced. Who were the directors of the mining company at the date of the grant does not appear, but the record shows that at the time of the trial of this action, and for several years previous, its board of directors and its executive officers had been filled by the directors and executive officers of the Erie Railway Company, and by its successor, the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company.
April 27, 1878, the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company was .incorporated under the laws of this State, "and shortly thereafter it succeeded to all of the property of the Erie Railway Company, including all of its right, title and interest in and to the property leased and conveyed to it by the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company.
1, The Northwestern Mining & Exchange Company •has a capital of $500,000, all of which is owned by the .New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company. 'On May 13, 1881, the Northwestern Mining and Exchange Company conveyed the eight thousand acres of land and .oil rights to the Wilcox and Howard Improvement Company (a Pennsylvania corporation) for the recited consideration of $100 and for other good consideration. On June 28, 1881, the name of the last mentioned corporation was changed to the New York, Lake Erie and Western Coal and Railroad Company. When the last mentioned conveyance was made, the trustees of the grantee were not connected with the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, but at the date of the trial of this action, its trustees were connected with the last named corporation. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company owns all of the stock of the Northwestern Mining and Exchange Company, which
p. 35
corporation owns all of the stock of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Coal and Railroad Company. Since the conveyance of the eight thousand acres of land to the Northwestern Mining and Exchange Company, Hugh J. Jewett, as receiver of the Erie Railway Company, and the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, has derived a considerable income from the property. But two dividends have been paid upon the shares of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company since that date, one of $i per share, paid March 28th, and another of sixty-two cents per share, paid October 9, 1885.
The answers of the defendants denied certain allegations of the complaint and the answer of the defendant Jewett also set up that in December, 1879, he had fully accounted to the court as receiver of the Erie Railway Co. and had been discharged.
At the close of the trial the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Northwestern Mining and Exchange Company was a necessary party and was not before the court; that the defendant Jewett had been discharged as receiver before the commencement of the action, and that the N. Y., Lake Erie and Western R. R. Co. was not liable for acts happening before its organization.
Simon Sterne (Sterne, Straus & Thompson, attorneys), for appellant.
W. N. MacFarland (MacFarland, Reynolds & Lowrie, attorneys), for respondents.
There is no conflict in the evidence in this case. All of the material facts were testified to by the officers and employees of the defendants, who offered no evidence, except the order of December 30, 1879, discharging Hugh J. Jewett as receiver of the Erie Railway Company.
By the transactions set forth in the statement of facts,
p. 36
the Erie Railway Company and its successor, the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, have-acquired the property reserved in the lease without any consideration being paid therefor. This was effected, through the compliant board of directors of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company, elected and. controlled by the Erie Railway Company, which held a majority of the stock of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company. By this means the last mentioned corporation was stripped of all of its property, except that used for railroad purposes, and-for the use of which nothing will be paid for 499 years, except taxes assessed on its property and the interest on its debt. This renders all of the shares not held by the Erie Railway Company practically valueless, and that such was the intended effect is apparent from the transactions. This, was a fraud on the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company and its shareholders. Such frauds are not uncommon in the management of corporations, and when they are exposed they should be condemned by the courts,, and a heavy hand laid upon all who participate in them.
On March 16, 1880, the plaintiff requested the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company to bring an action against the Erie Railway Company to redress the wrongs herein complained of, which request was not complied with, and it is apparent that further application would have been unavailing, for the three defendants appeared in this action by the same attorneys, and served answers in all respects alike, except it is alleged in the answer of Hugh J. Jewett that his accounts as receiver have been approved by the court, and that he has surrendered all of the property that came into his hands, and was. discharged from his receivership on December 30, 1879. Under such circumstances an action may be maintained by a shareholder to redress the wrong done to the corpora- • tion of which he is a member (Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 88 N. Y. 52 ; Barr v. N. Y., Lake Erie and Western R. R.
p. 37
Co., 25 Id. 263). In the case first cited it was said : “ The •action to recover such losses, as before observed, should in 'general be brought in the name of" the corporation ; but, if it refuses to prosecute, the stockholders, who are the real parties in interest, will be permitted to sue in their ■own names, making the corporation a defendant ( 69 N. Y. 154 ). And that course of proceeding is also allowed if it appears that the corporation is still under the control of those who must be made the defendants in the suit (See Butts v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 317 ; Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 222). In such cases, a demand upon the corporation to bring the suit would be manifestly futile and unnecessary. A suit prosecuted under the direction and control of the very parties against whom the misconduct is alleged and ■a recovery is sought, would scarcely afford to the shareholders the remedy to which they are entitled, and the •fact that the delinquent parties are still in control of the ■corporation is of itself sufficient to entitle the shareholders to sue in their own names (Hodges v. New England Screw Co. 1. R. I. 312; Neath v. Erie Railway Co. 8 Blatchf. 347 ). If they could not be permitted in such cases to assert their ■own rights in a Court of Equity, the directors, so long as they remained in office, could set them at defiance.”
The Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company was not a party to the action for the foreclosure of the mortgage under the judgment in which the property of the Erie Railway Company was sold and acquired by the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, and the rights of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company are not cut off by the judgment •and sale, and besides, the mortgage was not a lien on the property and rights reserved to the lessor in the lease.
Upon the discovery of the fraud, an action could be maintained by a shareholder (the corporation refusing to sue) to set aside the deed of December 30, 1876, and the subsequent conveyances and liens, but to such an action the subsequent grantees and holders of liens are necessary
p. 38
parties; or an action could be maintained against the-parties to the fraud and those who subsequently aided in its consummation, to compel them to account as trustees- ex maleficio for whatever they have received through the wrongs which- they committed. To such an action the subsequent grantees and lienors are not necessary parties, for no relief could be granted against them, and in this case, for a stronger reason, the Northwestern Mining and Exchange Company and the New York, Lake Erie and Western Coal and Railroad Company are not necessary-parties to such an action, for the stock of both corporations is entirely owned by the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company.
It is asserted that in no event can Jewett, as receiver, be compelled to account. This may or may not be so. The conveyance of December 30, 1876, by which the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company was deprived of its property, was executed when Jewett was acting as-the receiver of the Erie Railway Company, and for several years he, as receiver, received a portion of the rents and profits of the lands conveyed. We think he should be required to account and to show how these receipts were disposed of. It may be that it will appear that his accounts rendered to the court were so stated that its order approving of his transactions and discharging him will be a defense, but this cannot be determined in advance of the accounting.
Under the evidence contained in this record, we can see no answer to the plaintiff’s claim that the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company should be required to account and pay over to the plaintiff the rents- and profits acquired by it through these fraudulent dispositions of the property of the corporation in which the plaintiff is a shareholder.
The defendants not having pleaded that the subsequent grantees of the Buffalo, Bradford & Pittsburgh Railroad Company and the persons and corporations who have
p. 39
acquired liens upon the property were necessary parties, they were not in a situation to ask to have the action dismissed, on the ground that those corporations and persons should have been brought into the action (Code C. P. § 499). When a defect of parties is pleaded, and the plea is sustained by the evidence, the court may refuse to allow the cause to stand over and dismiss the suit, but when a defect to parties is not pleaded, and the necessity for other parties to the action appears on the trial, the plaintiff not being guilty of laches, the suit should not be dismissed, but ordered to stand over on proper terms to> enable the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties before the court (Colt v. Lasineo, 9 Cow. 320 ; Epps v. Van Deusen, 4 Paige, 64; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 321; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. (3d Am. Ed.) 291 et seq).
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with leave to the plaintiff to apply to bring any such additional parties as he maybe advised, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Van Brunt, P. J., concurred.
Cases cited
- Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick 88 N. Y. 52 p. 36
- Greaves v. Gouge 69 N. Y. 154 p. 37