Shields v. Greater Cape May, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
This stockholders’ bill is to set aside, and if not set aside to have declared the amount due on four real estate mortgages made by the Cape May Real Estate Company to Nelson Z. Graves, the president of the company, February 21st, 1912, for $250,000; January 8th, 1913, for $75,000; November 4th, 1913, for $30,000, and February 14th, 1914, for $25,000. The attack on the last mentioned was abandoned. The company having been declared insolvent, Frank D. Schroth, receiver, was substituted as complainant.
The Cape May Real Estate Company was formed years ago to develop waste land at Cape May into a seashore resort. Much money had been sunk in the project when Graves bought a majority interest in the company, at a low figure, in 1911, and installed his own board of directors. Though the company’s affairs were moribund he was venturesome and proceeded to put in more. Under the old regime, in 1907, the company had contracted with the federal government to dredge a four-hundred-acre basin and connecting channel
“To dredge from the harbor of Gape May from the point commencing at Sewell’s Point at the line from which the United States government is to commence their part of the work of deepening the channel between the jetties erected by them, to any point within said harbor of Cape May as may be designated by the engineers of the Cap May Real Estate Company, the depth of excavation over the area dredged to be not less than thirty feet below mean low water, and not over thirty-three feet below mean low water.”
In this undertaking the company had a secondary purpose, to fill in its low land with the dredged material so as to provide salable building lots, and to that end it was stipulated that Graves should— 0
“Deposit all of the material excavated upon land known as New .Cape May, and shown on map attached to contract, and on the property known as Two-Mile Beach, at such points and in such quantities as may be determined necessary by the engineers of the Cape May Real Estate Company, except more particularly to deposit:
“First. On all that jDortion lying east of Princeton avenue in Plan ‘A’ of said Cape May Real Estate Company to the bulk [head] line established by said company, and between the northerly side of New Jersey avenue to the bulkhead line of the harbor, until such area be brought up to the grade established for the improvement of the*364 East Cape May property, in no case shall the material be required to be placed at a greater elevation than eleven feet above mean high water. [This location is known as ‘Low Area No. 2’ New Cape May.]
“Second. To deposit on the portion of the East Cape May property between Pittsburgh avenue and St. Louis avenue, and the northerly side of New Jersey avenue and the bulkhead line to be established by the engineers of the Cape May Real Estate Company on the southerly side of Cape May Harbor, and in such locations within this area as will be designated by the engineers of the Cape May Real Estate Company. The said deposit or fill to be brought up to grade established for the improvement of said property by the Cape May Real Estate Company. [This location is known as ‘Low Area No. 1’ New Cape May.]”
The company agreed to pay Graves “nine cents per cubic yard for each yard of material excavated and distributed upon the areas hereinbefore designated or to be designated by the engineers of the Cape May Eeal Estate Company.” The company had no funds and' Graves agreed to make advances, and for the work done and money advanced to take mortgages.
He advanced in money .............................. $116,308.41
He dredged 2,676,151 cubic yards, at 9 cents ......... 240,853.59
Total....................................... $357,162.00
He received in mortgages ............................ 355,000.00
These items, as to sums, are conceded to be correct. The legality of the contract is not assailed in the bill because it was made by the company, under the control of Graves, with Graves, its president, and at the hearing it was stipulated that the price of nine cents per cubic yard for the dredging was fair and reasonable. The bill counts on the contract and the cause of complaint is its non-performance, the charge being that the money represented by the mortgages was not earned because the channel was not dug to the required depth and the material dredged was not deposited as provided in the contract. The elaborate discussion in the briefs as to the binding force of agreements between a corporation and a member of its board of directors under the principle of law laid down in Stewart v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 38 N. J. Law 505, and the cases on the subject that followed is en
The material placed at the life saving station is a proper charge under the contract. The company was under contract to make the fill and the engineer’s discretion was properly exercised.
The claim for rebate because the channel was not dug to the depth of thirty feet is without merit. The depth varied between twenty-five and thirty, and approached more nearly the latter. The company’s contract with the United States called for a depth of thirty feet based upon the government’s contingent agreement to dig an entrance channel of twenty-five feet in depth. It dug one but fifteen feet deep, and the utility of the company’s thirty-foot deep basin and the channel of slightly lesser depth is consequently defeated. Dredging to the depth required by the government would have been sheer waste, and as Graves’ default resulted in a saving to the company it has no reason to complain.
The decree will be settled on notice.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.