Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

66

It must, however, be remembered that calling a person a promoter" does not of itself impose any responsibility upon him.46 The responsibility of the promoter depends upon what he does, not upon the name by which he is called.47 "Care must be taken," says Lord Justice Lindley,48 "not to be misled by words. Owing to the ambiguity in the meaning of the word promoter, and the difficulty of defining his exact relation to the company he procures to be formed, it is unsafe to say that any particular person was a promoter of a particular company, and to infer from thence, that he is liable to account to it as if he had been its trustee. The question in each case must be, what has the so-called promoter done to make himself liable to the demand made against him? What fraud or breach of trust has he committed or been party or privy to? If none, he is under no liability: if any, he is liable accordingly by whatever name he may be called or by whatever terms his relation to the company may be expressed."

§ 14. Fiduciary relation.

The fact of being a promoter does not of itself cast upon one any active duties toward the company to be formed. The promoter is, in the absence of a contract with some other person, a mere volunteer who may render as much, or as little service as he sees fit, and may discontinue his efforts at any time that he desires. In the carrying on of such transactions as he does undertake he stands, however, in a fiduciary relation to the corporation which he creates 49 and is held to the high standards which the

46. Hutchinson V. Simpson, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 382, 398, 87 N. Y. Supp. 369.

47. Brooker V. William H. Thompson Trust Co., 254 Mo. 125, 162 S. W. 187, 194; Lydney & Wigpool Iron Ore Co. v. Bird, L. R. 33 Ch. Div. 85, 93, 24 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 23.

48. Lindley on Companies Law,

5th ed. 349, 6th ed. Vol. 1, page 488. See also the opinion of Lindley, L. J., in Lydney & Wigpool Iron Ore Co. v. Bird, supra.

ern

49. Federal.-Dickerman v. NorthTrust Co., 176 U. S. 181, 204, 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L. Ed. 423; Commonwealth S. S. Co., v. AmeriShipbuilding Co., 197 Fed. 797, 804-805, affirmed, 215 Fed.

can

law imposes upon directors and other fiduciaries.50 He is bound to exercise the utmost good faith,51 his dealings must be open

[blocks in formation]

Coal & Land Co., 178 Ala. 234, 59 So. 219, Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas., 1915 B. 173.

Connecticut.-Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 64 Conn. 101, 119, 120, 29 Atl. 303, 308, 309, 25 L. R. A. 90, 42 Am. St. Rep. 159, 47 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 647.

Illinois. Mississippi Lumber Co. V. Joice, 176 Ill. App. 110, 120.

Massachusetts.-Old Dominion Copper, etc., Co. v. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159, 177-178, 89 N. E. 193, 40 L. R. A. N. S. 314, same v. same, 188 Mass. 315, 320, 327, 74 N. E. 653, 108 Am. St. R. 479; Keith v. Radway, 220 Mass. 532, 108 N. E. 498.

New Jersey.-Bigelow V. Old Dominion Copper, etc., Co., 74 N. J. Eq. 457, 506, 71 Atl. 153; Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. V. Buck, 52 N. J. Eq. 219, 230, 27 Atl. 1094, 44 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 686.

New York.-Colton Improvement Co. v. Richter, 26 Misc. 26, 30, 55, Supp. 486; Cf. Heckscher v. Edenborn, 203 N. Y. 210, 222, 96 N. E. 441, reversing, 137 App. Div. 899, 122 Supp. 1131, which followed 131 App. Div. 253, 259, 115 Supp. 673.

Ohio.-Second National Bank v. Greenville Screw Point Steel Fence Post Co., 23 Ohio C. C. 274, 281; Shawnee Comm. & Sav. Bk. Co. v. Miller, 24 Ohio C. C. 198, 210.

Oregon.-Johnson V. Sheridan

Lumber Co., 51 Or. 35, 40, 93 Pac. 470, 472; Wills v. Nehalem Coal Co., 52 Or. 70, 76, 96 Pac. 528, 531. Virginia.-Bosher v. Richmond & H. Land Co., 89 Va. 455, 460-461,. 16 S. E. 360, 362.

United Kingdom and Colonies.New Sombrero Phosphate Co. v. Erlanger, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 73, 118, 25 W. R. 436, affirmed, sub nom. Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1218, 1236, 1269, 1284, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 777, 39 L. T. N. S. 269, 27 W. R. 65; Gluckstein v. Barnes, 1900, App. Cas. 240, 257; Bagnall v. Carlton, L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 371, 382–386; Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant, L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 918, 935-936; Nant-YGlo & Blaina Ironworks Co. V. Grave, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 738, 749; Alexandra Oil & Dev. Co., v. Cook, 11 Ont. W. R. 1054.

50. Tegarden Bros. v. Big Star Zinc. Co., 71 Ark. 277, 281, 72 S. W. 989, 991; Old Dominion Copper, etc., Co. v. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159, 177-178, 89 N. E. 193, 40 L. R. A. N. S. 314 and cases cited.

See note to Lomita Land & Water Co. v. Robinson, 18 L. R. A. N. S. 1107-1108.

51. Federal.-Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 181, 204, 20 Supp. Ct. 311, 44 L. Ed. 423.

Alabama.-Moore V. Warrior Coal & Land Co., 178 Ala. 234, 59 So. 219.

Connecticut.-Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 64 Conn. 101, 120, 29 Atl. 303, 25 L. R. A. 90, 42 Am. St.

and fair,52 and he must not take advantage of the corporation, nor of the subscribers for its shares.53

A promoter has, in theory of law, no power whatsoever to act for, or in any way bind, the corporation which he organizes.54 In practice, however, "he has in his hands the creation and molding of the company; he has the power of defining how and when

[blocks in formation]

Iowa.-Caffee V. Berkley, 141 Iowa 344, 118 N. W. 267.

Wisconsin.-First Avenue Land Co. v. Hildebrand, 103 Wis. 530, 534, 79 N. W. 753, 754.

United Kingdom and Colonies.Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1218, 1255, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 777, 39 L. T. N. S. 269, 27 W. R. 65; Twycross v. Grant, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 469, 538.

52. A. J. Cranor Co. v. Miller, 147 Ala. 268, 273, 41 So. 678, 680; The Telegraph v. Loetscher, 127 Iowa 383, 387, 101 N. W. 773, 774, 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 467.

See note to Lomita Land & Water Co., v. Robinson, 18 L. R. A. N. S. 1107-1108.

53. Federal.-Yeiser V. U. S. Board & Paper Co., 107 Fed. 340, 344, 46 C. C. A. 567, 52 L. R. A. 724; Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. Rep. 538, 540; Dickerman V. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 181, 204, 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L. Ed. 423.

Alabama.-Moore v. Warrior Coal & Land Co., 178 Ala. 234, 59 So. 219. California.-Ex-Mission Land & Water Co. v. Flash, 97 Cal. 610, 626, 32 Pac. 600, 604.

Illinois.-Mississippi Lumber Co. v. Joice, 176 Ill. App. 110, 120.

Iowa.-Hinkley v. Sac Oil & Pipe Line Co., 132 Iowa 396, 402, 107 N. W. 629, 632, 119 Am. St. R. 564; The Telegraph v. Loetscher, 127 Iowa 383, 388, 101 N. W. 773, 774, 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 667.

Michigan.-Fred Macey Co. V. Macey, 143 Mich. 138, 152, 106 N. W. 722, 727, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 1036.

New Jersey.-Arnold v. Searing, 78 N. J. Eq. 146, 157-158, 78 Atl. 762, 766–767; See v. Heppenheimer, 69 N. J. Eq. 36, 71, 61 Atl. 843. Ohio.-Shawnee Commercial Savings Bank Co. v. Miller, 24 Ohio C. C. 198, 210.

Oregon.-Johnson

&

V. Sheridan Lumber Co., 51 Or. 35, 40, 93 Pac. 470, 472.

Virginia.-Jordan v. Annex Corporation, 109 Va. 625, 629, 64 S. E. 1050, 1052, 17 Am. & Eng Ann. Cas. 267.

United Kingdom and Colonies.Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1218, 1284, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 777, 39 L. T. N. S. 269, 27 W. R. 65; Bagnall v. Carlton, L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 371, 384, 386; Alexandra Oil & Dev. Co. v. Cook, 11 Ont. W. R. 1054, 1059. 54. See post, chapter IV.

and in what shape and under what supervision it shall start into existence and begin to act as a trading corporation. It is he who selects the directors, to whom he gives such power as he chooses; it is he who settles the regulations of the company, regulations under which the company, as soon as it comes into existence, may find itself bound to anything not in itself illegal, which the promoter may have chosen. This control of the promoter over the company, so plenary and absolute, involves a correlative responsibility, and out of this responsibility arises the doctrine now well settled of the fiduciary relation of the promoter toward the company he creates."

9955

This fiduciary obligation of the promoter extends to the corporation, to its existing stockholders, and to the subscribers for its shares,56 but not to its bondholders or other creditors.57

55. Arnold v. Searing, 78 N. J. Eq. 146, 157, 78 Atl. 762, 766. See also Tegarden Bros. v. Big Star Zinc Co., 71 Ark. 277, 281, 72 S. W. 989, 991; Goodwin v. Wilbur, 104 Ill. App. 45; Jordan v. Annex Corporation, 109 Va. 625, 629, 64 S. E. 1050, 1052, 17 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 267.

56. Alabama.-Moore v. Warrior Coal & Land Co., 178 Ala. 234, 59 So. 219.

Arizona.-Hughes v. Cadena DeCobre Min. Co., 13 Ariz. 52, 61, 108 Pac. 231, 234.

Arkansas. Tegarden Bros. v. Big Star Zinc Co., 71 Ark. 277, 281, 72 S. W. 989, 990-991.

Indiana.-Cushion Heel Shoe Co. v. Hartt, 181 Ind. 167, 103 N. E. 1063, 50 L. R. A. N. S. 979. Maine.-Camden Land Co. Lewis, 101 Me. 78, 95, 63 Atl. 523, 530.

Michigan.-Fred Macey Co.

V.

V.

Macey, 143 Mich. 138, 152, 106 N.
W. 722, 727, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 1036.

New Jersey.-Woodbury Heights Land Co. v. Loudenslager, 55 N. J. Eq. 78, 88, 35 Atl. 436, 440, affirmed, 56 N. J. Eq. 411, 41 Atl. 1115, but modified, 58 N. J. Eq. 556, 43 Atl. 671.

New York.-Brewster v. Hatch, 122 N. Y. 349, 362, 25 N. E. 505, 33 N. Y. St. Rep. 527.

Washington.-Mangold v. Adrian Irr. Co., 60 Wash. 286, 290, 111 Pac. 173, 175.

United Kingdom and Colonies. Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate, 1899, 2 Ch. Div. 392, 422; In re Leeds & Hanley Theatres of Varieties, 1902, 2 Ch. Div. 809, 824-832.

See note to Lomita Land & Water Co. v. Robinson, 18 L. R. A. N. S. 1107.

Heckscher v. Edenborn, 203 N. Y. 210, 224-225, 96 N. E. 411, seems

Whether this fiduciary relation of the promoter extends to future subscribers is a question on which the courts are not entirely in accord. It is held in many jurisdictions that the promoter stands in a fiduciary relation, not only to the existing stockholders and subscribers, but to all those whom the promoter intends as a part of the original scheme, to bring in as subscribers to the company's shares.58 The Supreme Court of the

to hold that the promoter does not stand in a fiduciary relation to one who, without being solicited, asks permission to become a subscriber.

57. Banque Franco-Egyptienne v. Brown, 34 Fed. Rep. 162, 190-191, 196; Donnelly v. Baltimore Trust Co., 102 Md. 1, 29; 61 Atl. 301. See also Cornell v. Hay, L. R. 8 C. P. Cas. 328.

58. Federal.-Yeiser V. United States Board & Paper Co., 107 Fed. 340, 344, 46 C. C. A. 567, 52 L. R. A. 724.

Arkansas.-Tegarden Bros. v. Big Star Zinc Co., 71 Ark, 277, 281, 72 S. W. 989, 990-991.

California.-Burbank v. Dennis, 101 Cal. 90, 98, 35 Pac. 444, 447.

Indiana.-Cushion Heel Shoe Co. v. Hartt, 181 Ind. 167, 103 N. E. 1063, 50 L. R. A. N. S. 979.

Maine.-Mason v. Carrothers, 105 Me. 392, 399, 401-402, 74 Atl. 1030, 1033, 1034; Camden Land Co. v. Lewis, 101 Me. 78, 95, 63 Atl. 523, 530.

Massachusetts.-Old Dominion Copper, etc., Co. v. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159, 183, 187, 193, 89 N. E. 193, 40 L. R. A. N. S. 314; Hayward v. Leeson, 176 Mass. 310, 318, 57 N. E. 656, 49 L. R. A. 725.

Michigan.-Torrey v. Toledo Portland Cement Co., 158 Mich. 348, 122 N. W. 614.

Missouri.-South Joplin Land Co. v. Case, 104 Mo. 572, 579-580, 16 S. W. 390, 392, 38 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 333.

New Jersey.-Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Buck, 52 N. J. Eq. 219, 232, 233, 27 Atl. 1094, 44 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 686.

Pennsylvania.-Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. 43, 50; Mackey Baking Co. v. Mackey, 19 Pa. Dist. Ct. 893, 902.

Washington.-Mangold v. Adrian Irrigation Co., 60 Wash. 286, 290, 111 Pac. 173, 175.

United Kingdom and Colonies.— In re British Seamless Paper Box Co., L. R. 17 Ch. Div. 467, 479; In re Olympia, Ltd., 1898, 2 Ch. Div. 153, 175-177, affirmed sub nom. Gluckstein v. Barnes, 1900, App. Cas. 240, 257; New Sombrero Phosphate Co. v. Erlanger, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 73, 113, 25 W. R. 436, affirmed sub nom. Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1218, 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 777, 39 L. T. N. S. 269, 27 W. R. 65; In re Leeds & Hanley Theatres of Varieties, 1902, 2 Ch. Div. 809, 823-824; In re Anglo French Co

« AnteriorContinuar »