Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-11-15
GAGE 1.IlG(;']l. wins THE CASE
dAdE Wins lHE GASE
The Suit Of Gage IS Fisher Decided BY
the Judges Of the Supreme
Court.
Judgment Of the Lower Court Reversed
and Gage Gets Judgment for
the Sum Sued.
The Court Expresses Itself Upon the
Squeezing Process Alleged
In Testimony.
Fisher Admitted to Have a Grievance
Fisher Admitted to Have a Grievance
in the Forum Of Conscience,
but Not in Law.

AHErfE. @a
in the Forum Of Conscience,
but Not in Law.
The Gage-Fisher Case Decided.
The supreme court Monday handed
down it's decision in the case Of Gage
vs.. Fisher, appealed from the district
court Of this district, and argued<at the
adjourned term Of conrt here. The case
arises out of the transactions OF Gage
and Fisher in securing of control Of the
stock of the First National Bank, in the,
winter Of 1892. and the facts in the case
have already been published in the
TRIBUNE, at the time the case was tried
in the district court. In brief, however,
the case, was a suit by Gage against
Fisher. for $4,000, the balance on a note
which was given in part payment of
5000, for ten shares Of bank stock,
owned by Gage, and by him sold to
Fisher for the consideration above
stated. Fisher had paid S2,OOOin cash
atthe time the sale was made, and gave
a note for the balance, uponswhich he
paid $1,000, and afterwards refused to
pay the balance, claiming that Gage
had gotten him into aeposition when he
must have the stock, and then extorted
5000, by threatening to sell to the
other side, and thus give them the con
troll of a majority of the stock. Gage
sued to recover, and Fisher. asked the
return Of the $4,000 already paid, and
rendered the. ten shares of stock back to
Gage. The lower court decided against
: the plaintiff Gage, andi in favor Of Fisher.
HE case was appealed, and the supreme
court reverses the judgment OF. the dis.
trict court in all things, and directs a
Judgment entered in favor Of Gage, for
the full amount of the note, principal
and interest,".
The syllabus Of the decision by the
court is as follows:
Equity will not specifically enforce a
contract to give a minority stakeholder the
right control the stock of another, and
vote it at a stockholders meeting, where
the sole purpose is to secure control of the
corporation by the use of such stock.
Therefore. when such a contract has been
made, and on the strength of it the prom
isee has suffered to pass beyond his control
stock which in connection with stock
owned by him would have given him con
troll of the corporation, and thereafter the
prOmisor threatens to sell his stock to the
opposing faction and thus give them con.
troll of the corporation, and the promisee,
to save himself from d~efeatin his project
to secure control of the corporation, pur-
chases such, stock at a figure much in ex
cess Of its normal market value, such con
tract Of purchase cannot thereafter be re-
scinded. but the purchaser must pay the
stipulated price.
A contract to allow another to control
the voting Of stock based upon a promise
OF the one who Is to control such stock ia
secure for the owner of the stock an Office
in the corporation, is illegai;a nd the whole
contract Is void, although the illegal con.
sideratiOn, i. e., the promise TO secure fo1
the owner of the stock a corporate office
constitutes only a part of the consideration
for the agreement to give such promisee
cOntrOIO Of the stock. FED
The opinion Of the court in the matter
Is an interesting one ana goes qulte
tnoroughly into particulars OF the ~
case Inc our say IN discussing the
relinquisnment OF the shaw STOCK os
Fisher, upon the promise Of Gage tc
vote MS ten shares tor flsher' and linus
assure MN a majority OF the STOCK;
:! ~ is true' DuG."e express no opinioa
11:aga1 afrer having i indnced tbe defand
ant to part with the control of the corpora
ton by letting the Shaw stock slip from
nun On promise. 70 saDstltute ms lpialn
a1,on, tha da .o ~ 9 - ,so tha n,a;nt,ts,
stock as he the defendant. could nave nsed
the Shaw stock at the next annual meeting
his subsequent conduct in repudiating hi:
~ w 40 oil dCG VI kkOSSa pCll " 0uN