20 rnomnu. nuronrnn.- ~
8. In reference to the question of interest raised by counsel for
Harvey and others, the court is of the opinion that Harvey and those
united with him are bound for interest at the rate of 8 per cent. from
maturity of the note until the money was paid into court. Interest
stopped when the money was so paid. If interest has been paid in
excess of the amount here indicated it will be refunded, ..
Snnnnns v. Pncsmx Ines Co.*
. (Uirouit Oowrt, E. D. Pennsylvania. July 1, 1881.) _
CORPOBATION—STOCKHOLDEB’B BH»L—EQUITABLE Rm.r¤r·—Fxmr.r Conmmyrron.
It is suiilcient ground for equitable interference that complainant, who is a
stockholder of a corporation, alleges that the oflicers of the corporation, who
are members of one family and own a majority of the stock, have combined to
appropriate the profits of the corporation in the form of salaries, and through
a contract with a firm of which they are members, and have also combined to
` keep complainant in ignorance with regard to these transactions.
Demurrer to Bill in Equity.
This was a bill by George H. Sellers against a corporation known
as the Phoenix Iron Company, and against its oiiicers and directors
individually. The allegations of the bill were in substance: I
‘ That the Phoenix Iron Company was originally organized out of the firm of
Reeves, Buck & Co., which was composed of David Reeves, Samuel J. Reeves,
Robert S. Buck, and Samuel A. Whitaker, and that at the time of the incor-
poration the said Robert S. Buck withdrew, the stock being divided among
the remaining members of the firm, with the exception of a few shares trans-
ferred to employes to provide for filling the 'oiiices and the board of directors;
that David and Samuel J . Reeves afterwards died, but that their stock con-
tinued to be held, and was still held, by their families; that complainant had
become the owner by purchase of the stock originally owned by Samuel A.
Whitaker, but that all the other stock was held by the families of said David
andSamue1 J. Reeves, most of it, amounting to a large majority ofthe whole
· capital stock, being held or controlled by David Reeves, sonof Samuel J.
Reeves, and by William H. Reeves, either in their own names or as trustees
. under the will of Samuel J. Reeves; that said David Reeves was president of
thecorporation, and William H. Reeves one of the directors; that the busi-
’ ness of the corporation was extensive and prosperous, but that the profits
were absorbed, by excessive salaries to the ofiicers; that instead of making its
contracts for bridge building, which was an extensive branch of its business,
directly with itscustomers, the corporation had entered _into an agreement
with the lirmof Clarke, Reeves & Co., of which firm David Reeves and Will.
*Reported by Frank P. Prichard Esq., of the Plfladelp is bar.