|
Page 169
357 F.2d 169
In the Matter of Dixon Mills, Inc.,
Bankrupt.
DIXON MILLS, INC., Appellant,
v.
DIXON NATIONAL BANK OF DIXON, ILLINOIS et
al., Appellees.
No. 15199.
United States Court of Appeals
Seventh Circuit.
February 16, 1966.
William E. Schirger, Rockford,
Ill., Gerald T. Flynn, William R. Stroemer,
Racine, Wis., for appellant.
Jerome F. Dixon, Chicago, Ill.,
Warren H. Badger, Dixon, Ill., J. Richard
Hull, Fairbury, Ill., George K. Ray, Luke R.
Morin, Dixon, Ill., for appellees.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and
KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
KNOCH, Circuit Judge.
A petition in bankruptcy for
Dixon Mills, Inc., the named appellant, was
filed by Nelson Rittenhouse as "sole
stockholder." Mr. Rittenhouse claims to be
the equitable owner of 100% of the capital
stock of Dixon Mills. He alleges that he
acquired this stock on his own behalf and on
behalf of the creditors of Dixon Mills from
George Wassenaar, the former owner by an
assignment dated December 2, 1964,
unaccompanied by the stock certificate
itself which was then in the hands of Dixon
National Bank. Mr. Rittenhouse claims that
the Bank's refusal to deliver the
certificate to him was illegal and in
furtherance of a plan to prevent his
acquiring legal title to the stock. He
charges further that although he notified
the Bank of his claim, the Bank neverthless
entered into a trust arrangement with George
Wassenaar under which the Bank now asserts a
power to conduct the affairs of Dixon Mills.
This appeal is taken from orders
of the District Court denying Mr.
Rittenhouse's motion for appointment of a
receiver, allowing motion of "Dixon Mills,
Inc., By Lawrence Yingling, President" to
vacate the prior adjudication in bankruptcy,
and to dismiss the debtor's petition in
bankruptcy. The appellees are Dixon Mills,
Inc.; Honeggers' and Company, lessee of
certain assets as described below; and Dixon
National Bank, Trustee.
The stock certificate in question
was an exhibit in the hearing in the
District Court. It shows ownership in George
Wassenaar and is endorsed by him in blank
under date of February 14, 1964. A trust
agreement of the same date was executed by
Mr. Wassenaar with Dixon National Bank,
Trustee.
Under date of February 14, 1964,
Mr. Wassenaar assigned all of the
outstanding
Page 170
stock in blank and delivered it to Dixon
National Bank, in trust, which has retained
physical custody of the certificate
throughout the period, at least up until the
time of this appeal. The agreement provided
that if Mr. Wassenaar failed to find a
purchaser of the assets of Dixon Mills, at a
price equal to or in excess of all its
liabilities, or a purchaser of the stock,
with assurances that all the aforesaid
liabilities would be paid or satisfactorily
refinanced, by March 9, 1964, then the Bank
would have the right to do so. The
assignment of the stock was to be an
assignment of voting rights. Mr. Wassenaar
resigned as an officer and director of Dixon
Mills, Inc.
The termination date of April 15,
1964, was extended by agreement on April 10,
1964 to June 1, 1964.
The agreement was again amended
on June 1, 1964, to allow Dixon National
Bank to extend it further for varying
periods of not more than six months with the
proviso that in the event of sale or lease
the trust was to continue to complete the
closing of such transaction, conditioned
further on prior written consent of a
general creditors' committee evidenced by
signature of the committee chairman.
Repeated extensions were made
extending the option to January 1, 1965. All
of the option extensions executed by the
trustee recite: "cc: George A. Wassenaar."
The extensions to August 15 and October 1,
1964, carry handwritten acknowledgments of
copy received by George A. Wassenaar. The
extensions to November 1, 1964, and January
1, 1965, are not so endorsed.
Another trust agreement dated
December 17, 1964, was executed by Mr.
Wassenaar with the Bank. This December 17,
1964, trust agreement recites that the Bank
had executed a lease of certain assets of
Dixon Mills with Honeggers' and Company, and
that the parties confirm and approve such
action and set forth the terms under which
the Bank shall administer Dixon Mills for
the benefit of its general and secured
creditors and owner. The aforesaid
assignment of the stock certificate is
confirmed and reassigned. When all claims
are paid in full, the shares of stock are to
be assigned and reissued to Mr. Wassenaar.
Since December 17, 1964, the
officers of Dixon Mills have been Lawrence
Yingling, president; Arnold Spangler,
vice-president; and James Green, secretary
and treasurer. The board of directors has
been meeting. Neither the president nor the
directors authorized the filing of a
petition in bankruptcy.
Mr. Rittenhouse testified that at
the time of the assignment December 2, 1964,
he had been assistant to the president and
chairman of the general creditors'
committee. The president at that time was
Mr. Wassenaar. Mr. Green testified that the
position of assistant to the president was
eliminated on December 17, 1964, when the
new officers were elected. Mr. Rittenhouse
testified further that the assignment to him
was not to be retained for his own benefit,
and that he was to execute a trust and
transfer the stock to the trust for the
benefit of Dixon Mills' creditors, but that
the draft of such a trust instrument was
never completed. No transfer of the stock
from Mr. Wassenaar to Mr. Rittenhouse was
ever made on the books of the corporation
and thus Mr. Rittenhouse never secured the
rights and privileges of a stockholder.
Dixon Mills is a Delaware
corporation. The laws of Delaware require
surrender of the stock certificate to the
corporation in order to effect a transfer.
Berl v. Virginia Production Co., 1932, 19
Del.Ch. 113, 163 A. 641, 643, and, 1933, 19
Del.Ch. 277, 166 A. 402, 403. The mere
equitable owner of stock is not entitled to
exercise the rights and privileges of a
stockholder. Salt Dome Oil Corporation v.
Schenck, 1945, 28 Del. Ch. 433, 41 A.2d 583,
585, 586. The Uniform Stock Transfer Act
requires delivery of stock and assignment to
pass legal title for all purposes. Shinsaki
Nogano v. McGrath, 7 Cir., 1951, 187 F. 2d
753, 756.
Page 171
The mere act of notifying the
Bank did not create an element of estoppel
in this case. No act or representation of
the Bank induced Mr. Rittenhouse to take the
steps he did. Chicagoland Agencies v.
Palmer, 1936, 364 Ill. 13, 19, 2 N.E.2d 910,
and cases there cited.
As a stranger to the corporation,
Mr. Rittenhouse had no authority to
institute a voluntary proceeding in
bankruptcy on behalf of the corporation.
The orders of the District Court
denying motion to appoint a receiver,
vacating prior adjudication in bankruptcy,
and dismissing petition in bankruptcy, are
affirmed.
Affirmed.
|