The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-09-06
Mr.. FULLER HELD
NOT ENTITLED
TO THE ASSETS

Judge Brown in the superior court to-
-day-haaded down a decision In the equity
cause OF J. q. Fuller VS.. Frederick E.
Perkins, ct al. trustees. ct al. Complain
ant sought an accounting for the re-
spondents In regard to the sale of certain
stocks of the j. CT. Fuller company, CIV
en- TO the late Charles III. Perkins as col.
lateral security for an indebtedness OF
$500. Judge Brown dismlsses the Dill OF
complaint, and has filed the following de-
cision:
eat the time of the agreement sought
to be enforced, the respondents, inciud-
ing the ten shares owned by FREDERICK H.
Perkins. were the owners of 250 shares
and had as collateral security, 18 shares,
belonging to the complainant. amounting
in all TO 45 shares Of the capital stock
of the corporation. which consisted or bOO
shares. The dividend about TO be de-
clared on these 435 shares out OF the as
sets then on hand, was more than suHi-
cient to pay the complainant $500 note
and accrued interest, but the dividend on
the 185 shares owned by the complainant
and held as security for this note was In
sufficient for that purpose. There were
Go shares which the respondent thought
were owned by the complainant, and
they were desirous OF having these 90
shares turned over with a view OF saving
loss so far as possible TO the estate OF
Charles II. Perkins: Accordingly me let
Ter or Mr. Stark -bearfnS- -tate-AFfil g.,
1906 was written to the complainant. The
complainant contends that by the terms
OF the offer contained In this letter. ne
is entitled to the entire balance OF as
sets after payment OF the note. The OF
fer, which was promptly accepted by the
complainant. appears to be susceptible or
the construction contended for by the
complainant, Mr.. Stark testified that ne
never intended to make such an offer as
the complainant contends for, and that
IL the offer actually made is to be con-
strued in that way. he made mistake
In the language used In his letter. The
effect will be, II the complainants con-
tention is correct, that the respondents
make the complainant n present OF sew
eral thousand dollars. i cannot find from
the language of this letter, as whole
that the respondents desired TO do this.
What they desired was to get the COM
plainant's dividend on 20 shares, which
they had reason 10 doubt would be suffi-
cient to pay the note In full, but IL In.
sufficient in consideration. that they get
the dividend on the 6 shares, In addition
10 the 1S5 shares already held by them,
they were willing 10 surrender the note
and forego the insufficiency, and if more
than sufficient. then TO turn over to the
complainant the balance OF his share OF
the assets whatever IL might be.
IL can see no inducement for the re-
spondents 20 make such an offer as the
complainant contends was made. The
complainant suggests that the respond
ents desired TO avoid litigation, and that
TO get the 65 shares without litigation
was a sufficient consideration. But the x
shares were unnecessary unless the note
was To be paid out OF the complainant Z
share OF the assets. for the respondents
already having 435 shares, including the
1S5 shares pledged. the dividend would be-
more than sufficient 10 pay the note. and
there is no suggestion that litigation VIII
be nece ssary, unless there Is shortage
on the note
Ills honor. believing the construction
claimed by the respondents more reason
able than the complainauts gives the
former decision.