Case ID: wis_146/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ViNje, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brahm, Appellant, vs. M. C. Gehl Company and others, Respondents.
    
      April 10 —
    May 2, 1911.
    
    
      'Corporations: Stoclc issued, for good will of business: Fraud: Findings: Evidence.
    
    A finding by the trial court that no false representations were made as to the value of the good will of a business, for which good will, upon incorporation of the business, certain shares of stock were issued, is held to be sustained by the evidence.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: WakkeN D. TaeeaNt, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Equitable action brought by plaintiff to cancel ten shares of stock alleged to have been.fraudulently issued to tbe defendant Mary E. Gehl, wife of tbe defendant M. C. Gehl, and also to cancel one share of stock alleged to have been fraudulently issued to M. C. Gehl. At tbe close of tbe evidence tbe court made findings negativing fraud, and entered judgment dismissing tbe plaintiff’s complaint, from which judgment tbe plaintiff appealed.
    
      A. J. Eimermann, for tbe appellant.
    
      For the respondents the canse was submitted on the brief -of John H. Paul.
    
   ViNje, J.

The single question presented by this appeal is •one of fact. The trial court found that no false or fraudulent representations were made by the defendants as to the ■value of the good will of the business, for which ten shares of ■stock were issued to the wife of the defendant M. C. GeM. There is ample testimony to sustain this finding and, that being so, the question of estoppel is eliminated. It is. significant, as respondents urge, that for two years and a half, while plaintiff was president of the corporation and drawing a salary of $60 per month, he failed to discover that the value of the good will had been misrepresented, but made such discovery the moment he lost his office and salary. As to the one share of stock issued to M. 0. GeM, it is undisputed that it was issued for personal property turned over by him to the ■corporation. It would serve no useful purpose to review the ■evidence upon which the findings of the court are based.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.