Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-05-07

The application of John G. Hart
mann and Others to have the Security
Trust and Safe Deposit Co., removed
from the trusteeship of certain stock of
the Hartmann & Fehrenbach Brewing
Co., will be fought by the Trust com
pany.
The case is that of John G. Hart.
mann, and Theresa NJ. lIehl, John +.
dren of Louisa S. Kopf, deceased, by
= Hartmann VS.. Security Trust and Safe
Deposit Co., corporation of the State
of Delaware, trustee of John Hartmann,
deceased. From the bill of complaint
il appears that John Hartmann was
the father of John q. Hartmann, the
orator, and Louisa S. Kopf, deceased.
He died in February, 1880, and his
purported will and codicil were ad.
mitted to probate. The validity Of the
will is questioned, but it is considered
as legal and binding until it shall be
set aside and annuled by proper tri-
bunal. Under that will and codicil
the Security Trust and Safe Deposit
Co. was appointed trustee of the
shares of stock in the Hartmann Il
Fehrenbach Brewing Co., which Mr.,
Hartmann had not in his will other.
wise disposed Of. These shares of stock
were directed to be divided into two
equal portions, one to be held for John
G. Hartmann, the orator, and the
other for Louisa S. Kopf, now de-
ceased. Her children, Theresa, John
f. and Annie W. He'll were by her
first husband. George W. He'll. now
deceased. She afterwards married
Benjamin +. kopf, who survives her
The1rust company holds AGO shares Of
the brewing company's stock under the
provisions of the will Of John Fohren-
bach, in addition to what 1t holds un-
der John Hartmann's will.
The capital stock of the brewing
company consists of 1000 shares, at
the par value Of SlO0 making total
capital stock of 5000, coo. The trust
company holds in all l,25s shares of
the 1000 'although neither the trust
company nor its officer is the beneficial
or equitable owner of single share, or
in fact, has anything whatsoever in
vested in the stock or business of the
said brewing company.
The shares held directly aud in
directly by the Trust company and its
officers, are alleged to have been voted
adversely to the wishes Of the orators
and other stockholders of the brewing
company. The stockholders supporting
the complainant are eight in all and
hold total of 3Sl shares which have
been voted uniformly at stockholders'
meetings of the company in accordance
with the wishes of the orators and the
majority of its board OF directors
The bill Of complaint proceeds to
cohdemn the action of the Trust com
pany in connection with the brewing
company, claiming that such differ,
ences have arisen as threaten the dis
ruption and destruction of the business
of the brewing company to the loss of
and damage of John q. Hartmann in
dividuaily and as guardian. John G.
Hartmann, ayors thag in the various
Gisagreements which have arisen he
has been supported by majority OF
the duly elected board of directors and
by eight out of the Il individual stock.
holders. He holds that had tho Trust
company consulted his wishes as to the
matter of voting the stock held for him
and his wards in trust, ami for other
benetciaries tnrrc could not have been
voted against him more than 325 shares
OF the ,, 900.
1t is alleged that from time TO time
for several years past the conduct and
ulcthoIs of tho said Trust cumuany@*s
have not been consistent with the vol
fare anu well'being of the said brewing
company, ana differences and disagree
monts have arisen between the repre-
sentative Of the Trust company in the
board of directors Of the said brewing
coEpany and the majority Of the sait
board Of directors, and when such dis
agreements and differences were mi
So adjusled in strict conformity with the
wishes Of the Trust company il has
been tho habit and custom To demanC
and require thar stnrkholdcr,' mept
ing should be held and at sarh meet
irgs to adopt such orders ana intgrug
tinGs aa to the rpupssntatiya oI
the Trust company Hcemmi meet anC
proper to carry out his Wiahes with re
5pect 70 the policy Of the said brewing
company.
Your orators aver that whcncve,
such disagrocments have 1gcurrrd nnr
such meetings been heldand such reso
lutions pasHcd, ii has always hceu r0n
trary TO the Lest judgment Vi the mos
competent mrmbcrs Of tho hoard o
directors, and injurious 10 the sat
brewing company, for rs Yuur orator.
aver, the said Trust company hasneye
at stockholders meetings, Boon rpprc
sentCd by any Of the members of IN
own board OF directors, or uay of IN
managing heats ut its own business
hut has sent as It's Representative 4
such meetlnS5 lt9 clerks ami subnr,i
nate employees to dictate tu Inn Inen,
oers nt the said board Of directors q
the said brewing comuauv. wnnt if
gluli glpttlI t,,,fh d
manufacture and sale Of beer and mo-,
ter, and the general conduct Of i14 btpI
ness and whom it should employ an
discharge.
The bill goes on to say that the Tr,i.
company Very properly concluded II +.
tire from lts liduciary position Hu lara
tho same affected Cine lfrWui.s lti.ii,..,r
and ITS stock, ana ~ "a 5tor5l.ullers
moeung February 'ii, 1886. a rUsniufl,I
was adopted stating That the rru.
company was abogt 10 rreler 4 uetIIra
10 The court of cndncery as!.IE, ITS =,
mpNal irOm lt5 iidlciHy uiica4 futl Nj
appointment uf another trasLre. .Jah
., NpSsel and Charles VII. kgrtz tei
u'FeH their designations e. tlfD rf{m
4ilnh tHe appointment 1i g urW trtstr,
IL was fe7uYea hal no r.fa., rt -IluI
N na'l@ ior 10 DAYS. Iue hDartI
Director subsequently ltupud iiiAt
%a7 the hienunoI tAc fusreon,pat
90 tl'''.+' l}7 engage IT'S Win n
Sp.ht i1 iN4 ppGciaria s,sppcfiug i
Resignation ana removal ir1m II
lfIsla aacr winch IL ualI stock +
Inc lI8 brewing Csmp.Uv." abli
ftFlAlIGA Hal adopted nslrpglinv u,
qNHltue eor iemnatiOlu t4r said Tru
eoWWy,H action a... tu., l.ir,ato
s"tItAt. ltmcat earnestly H+rinr at,tl X