Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry

Last updated
Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 7, 1885
Decided February 2, 1885
Full case namePneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry
Citations113 U.S. 322 ( more )
5 S. Ct. 525; 28 L. Ed. 1003
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinion
MajorityField, joined by unanimous

Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry, 113 U.S. 322 (1885), was a case regarding a decree whereby a director of a corporation can be released by that corporation of all claims, equitable or otherwise, arising out of transactions under a contract between the corporation and the director made in excess of its corporate powers is valid, if made in good faith and without fraud or concealment. [1]

Contents

In 1869 several individuals interested in a patent for the manufacture of illuminating gas, and gas machines known as "Rand's Patent," for the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa, agreed to unite their interests, obtain an act of incorporation from the Legislature of Illinois, and do business in Chicago.

They applied to the legislature of the state, and on 24 March following obtained an act duly incorporating them and their associates and successors under the name of the Illinois Pneumatic Gas Company. By its third section, the corporation was invested with power to manufacture and sell illuminating gas, to be made from petroleum or its products under the patents owned or to be owned by the company, or in which it may have any title or interest, issued or to be issued to A. C. Rand; also to manufacture and sell the works and machinery, with all needed materials and appliances for such manufacture, and to make assignments and grant licenses under the patents in the same manner and to the same effect as if the corporation were a natural person.

In September 1869, the corporators organized under the act of the legislature, adopted a set of bylaws for the management of the affairs of the company, and, pursuant to them elected a board of nine directors, with full control of its property and franchises, and a president, secretary, and treasurer and general manager. The defendant Joseph H. Berry was chosen as one of the directors, and Mahlon S. Frost was chosen treasurer and general manager. From this time until the first of June in the following year, 1870, the company carried on at Chicago the business of manufacturing gas machines.

But the business was not profitable, and the company ran in debt and became embarrassed. Judgments were recovered against it upon which executions were issued and levied upon its property. It was without money or credit or any available means of raising funds, and the forcible sale of its whole property was imminent.

Several leases were negotiated and extended and on March 15, 1876, the defendants made a third proposition to the directors for the adjustment of their business, which was accepted and incorporated into an agreement executed on that day. It transferred to the company the interest in the lease to Frost remaining in them, and stipulated to assign and transfer on demand all of the capital stock owned by them for the sum of $274, and the right to manufacture gas machines at some one place to be selected by them in certain named state, with the privilege of selling the machines. It stipulated to pay and deliver to the stockholders the moneys received from them under the contract of October 15, 1874, with interest thereon, and to deliver up such notes as they then held. And on the other hand, the company stipulated to pay to the defendants their proportion of any royalty that might be collected on the patents during the time the defendants owned stock in the company in the proportion that their stock bore to the whole stock of the company, and it released them from all claims, either equitable or otherwise, which it had by virtue of previous agreements or transactions.

The provisions of this agreement were fully carried out by the defendants. They paid over to the several stockholders the money, and surrendered the notes they had received under the agreement of October 15, 1874, and interest on the money. Notwithstanding this settlement and the release of the company thereby executed, the present bill was filed by it in September 1877, upon instructions of its board of directors to cancel the lease and contracts, to charge the defendants as trustees, and compel them to account for the property received from the company and profits made by them in their business under the lease. It set forth the lease and the transactions we have mentioned, and charges that they were made in excess of the authority of the directors, and were therefore null and void; that it was a breach of duty on their part to make the lease to Frost and on his part to receive it, he being the treasurer and general manager of the company, and also that the release was invalid because the defendants then had in their possession, unaccounted for, the sum of at least $60,000 derived from their business under the lease, which belonged to the company.

The answer of the defendants explained the agreements and transactions with the company, its insolvent condition when the lease was made, the repeated offers to return the property and turn over the business to the company, and the final settlement and execution of the release of the company by the agreement of March 15, 876. The lease to Frost and the contracts and transactions between the parties were fully disclosed by the proofs produced, and the court held, after full consideration, that under the embarrassed circumstances in which the company was placed at the time, judgments being rendered against it and executions levied upon its property, which was about to be sold, the lease was a valid transaction. Had it not been made, said the court, and the money furnished by the defendants to meet the liabilities of the company, its whole property would have been sacrificed and its business entirely broken up, and though Frost, to whom the lease was made, was at the time a director of the corporation, that fact of itself was not sufficient ground to set aside the contract, it being made to protect the interests or the company, and without any fraudulent design on his part. The court also held that it ought not to set aside the lease for other reasons—namely that it had been executed over seven years before any objection was made to it, and had during this time been repeatedly ratified, and that the release executed under the agreement of March 15, 1876, was a full and final settlement of the matters and claims between the parties, there being no evidence that the settlement was obtained by fraud or any improper conduct of either party. The court therefore dismissed the bill, and from its decree the cause is brought by appeal to this Court.

A court of equity does not listen with much satisfaction to the complaints of a company that transactions were illegal which had its approval, which were essential to its protection, and the benefits of which it has fully received. Complaints that its own directors exceeded their authority come with ill grace when the acts complained of alone preserved its existence.

But it is not necessary to rest our judgment of affirmance of the decree of the court below upon any consideration of the character of those transactions. After seven years' acquiescence in the lease, something more must be shown than that it was executed in excess of the powers of the directors before the lessee will be required to surrender the profits he has made under it. The lease expired June 1, 1874; the disposition of the property was settled by the agreement of March 15, 1876, and the release is an answer to all claims for the profits made by the defendants. The release is of itself sufficient to justify the dismissal of the bill. There is no evidence that it was obtained upon any fraudulent representations. Nothing was kept from the parties when it was executed. Indeed, all the transactions between the defendants and the company, from the time they took from Frost an assignment of the lease, were open and well known. There was no concealment, either had or attempted, of anything that was done, and no just reason can be given for disturbing the settlement made.

The decree was affirmed.

See also

Related Research Articles

A license or licence is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something.

The first-sale doctrine is a legal concept that plays an important role in United States patent, copyright and trademark law by limiting the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale", "first sale rule", or "first sale exhaustion rule".

A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege.

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948), was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Supreme Court affirmed in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the United States antitrust law, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal. "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged."

<i>Foss v Harbottle</i>

Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle", and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the "derivative action", which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf of the company. This applies in situations of "wrongdoer control" and is, in reality, the only true exception to the rule. The rule in Foss v Harbottle is best seen as the starting point for minority shareholder remedies.

Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle district of Alabama in favor of the appellees, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, adjudging them entitled to the sum of, 161.21, and interest thereon at eight percent per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the roadbed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants, corporations of the State of Georgia, in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale unless within a given time the said amount was paid. This suit is the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property in which the appellants are interested.

Citizens' Sav. & Trust Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 205 U.S. 46 (1907), was a suit brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the Belleville & Southern Illinois Railroad Company, the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company, all Illinois corporations, and the United States Trust Company, a New York corporation. The lastnamed corporation was never served with process and did not appear in the suit. The case presents a question as to the jurisdiction of the court below.

Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. v. Crane, 113 U.S. 424 (1885), was a suit brought by a taxpayer and resident in the Town of Polk City, Iowa, on behalf of himself and all other resident voters, taxpayers and property holders, commenced suit in a state court of Iowa against two companies, praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the reconstruction and operation of the old line after the Chicago and North Western Railway, an Illinois corporation. changed the line and made it avoid the city, constructing a branch to the latter. C&NW Railway was leased the line by the D&M Railroad Company, an Iowa Corporation, who had received from a township in Iowa, in consideration of its agreement to construct and maintain a railroad to a city in the township, the proceeds of a special tax and a conveyance of a large amount of swamp lands. It constructed the railroad and operating it for a time before leasing it to C&N Railway.


Robinson v Kilvert (1889) LR 41 ChD 88 is an English tort law case concerning nuisance. It deals with what is sometimes called the issue of a "sensitive claimant".

Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 453 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first elaborated on the exhaustion doctrine. According to that doctrine, a so-called authorized sale of a patented product liberates the product from the patent monopoly. The product becomes the complete property of the purchaser and "passes without the monopoly." The property owner is then free to use or dispose of it as it may choose, free of any control by the patentee. Adams is a widely cited, leading case. A substantially identical doctrine applies in copyright law and is known as the "first sale doctrine".

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174 (1963), was a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court, holding that the defendant Singer violated the antitrust laws by conspiring with two European competitors to exclude Japanese sewing machine competition from the US market. Singer effectuated the conspiracy by agreeing with the two European competitors to broaden US patent rights and concentrate them under Sanger's control in order to more effectively exclude the Japanese firms. A further aspect of the conspiracy was to fraudulently procure a US patent and use it as an exclusionary tool. This was the first Supreme Court decision holding that exclusionary use of a fraudulently procured patent could be an element supporting an antitrust claim.

<i>United States v. Vehicular Parking Ltd.</i>

United States v. Vehicular Parking Ltd. is a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Government eroded the doctrine of United States v. General Electric Co. permitting patentees to fix licensee prices, but failed to persuade the court to decree royalty-free licensing as a remedy.

United States v. United States Gypsum Co. was a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court decided, first, in 1948, that a patent licensing program that fixed prices of many licensees and regimented an entire industry violated the antitrust laws, and then, decided in 1950, after a remand, that appropriate relief in such cases did not extend so far as to permit licensees enjoying a compulsory, reasonable–royalty license to challenge the validity of the licensed patents. The Court also ruled, in obiter dicta, that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.

Besser Mfg. Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 444 (1951), is a 1951 patent–antitrust decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court upheld a ruling that the dominant U.S. manufacturer of concrete block–making machines violated the antitrust laws when it acquired its two principal competitors, bought important patents, made bad–faith threats of patent infringement suits, and entered into patent licensing agreements in which the parties were given veto powers over any prospective additional licensees. The Supreme Court approved the district court's grant of compulsory, reasonable–royalty licensing of the patents and compulsory sales of patented machines, holding that such relief "is a well–recognized remedy where patent abuses are proved in antitrust actions, and it is required for effective relief."

<i>United States v. Krasnov</i>

United States v. Krasnov, 143 F. Supp. 184, was a 1956 district court patent–antitrust decision that the United States Supreme Court affirmed per curiam without opinion. The district court granted the Government's summary judgment motion because it concluded:

That the defendants in combination controlled the market and had the ability to and did drive competitors from the business of manufacturing knitted fabric slip covers is abundantly clear from the record. That the defendants in combination fixed and maintained prices is likewise crystal clear. That the defendants in combination and cross-licensing created a situation in the industry which, particularly by agreement for joint action respecting the patents, effectively hindered newcomers in the field, is also established beyond peradventure of doubt. That the harassing suits against competitors, previously discussed in some detail, were designed as and were actually only harassing suits is clear from an examination of the correspondence between the parties and the Court feels that such conclusion in inescapable from an objective analysis of the documents. All of these actions taken in concert constitute a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Government has established to the satisfaction of the Court that the combination and conspiracy above referred to represents an unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce among the several states of the United States in the manufacture and sale of ready-made furniture slip covers, is unlawful, and in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Further, the Government, in the opinion of the Court, has effectively demonstrated that the defendants combined and conspired not only to restrain trade unreasonably but also to monopolize trade and commerce among the several states of the United States in the manufacture and sale of ready-made furniture slip covers, in direct violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Court also feels that by documentary proof the Government has established that the defendants have used patent rights unlawfully in instituting, effectuating and maintaining the aforesaid combination and conspiracy which likewise constitutes a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the General Electric case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent Interstate Circuit hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.

Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945), was a patent-antitrust case that the Government brought against a cartel in the glass container industry. The cartel, among other things, divided the fields of manufacture of glass containers, first, into blown glass and pressed glass, which was subdivided into: products made under the suction process, milk bottles, and fruit jars. The trial court found the cartel violative of the antitrust laws and the Supreme Court agreed that the market division and related conduct were illegal. The trial court required royalty-free licensing of present patents and reasonable royalty licensing of future patents. A divided Supreme Court reversed the requirement for royalty-free licensing as "confiscatory," but sustained the requirement for reasonable royalty licensing of the patents.

References

  1. ↑ Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry, 113 U.S. 322 (1885).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.