Judgment was rendered Saturday by Judge M.D. Purdy against C. R. Cox, in' an action drought by Lansing Hoyt, president, of several Upper Yangtze shipping firms, for Tis, 109, 893.01, in which his Honour found that innumerable commissions and illegal collections sseesed against plaintiff's Unauthorized charges for port dues in Chungking and for stamps and for coal and duplicated vouchers of various natures also were found to have been unjustly taken by defendant, At will be recalled that C, R. Cox is in America, where he went after' criminal proceedings against him' had been dropped. He was not pre~ sent at the hearing, but was served by notice in the press.
The judgment follows:
This is a suit in equity against the above named defendant for an accounting. It ig alleged in the complaing that the plaintiff is an 'American Corporation conducting a steamship business on the Yangtze River, and having its mian office in the city of Shanghai, in the Republic of China, and that ©, R. Cox Company, Me, is an American cor-oration,' incorporated under the Jaws of the State of Delaware, with its prinefpal place of business at Tehang in the Republic of China. 'That C, R. Cox isan American citizen residing within the juvisdietion of this court, and the managing director of the plaintiff company, and at the time of the filing of the complaint was the managing' director of the ©. R, Cox Company, Me. It is further alleged in the complaint that from and after January 1, 1925, the C. R, Cox Company, Inc., was the agent of the Yangtze Rapid Steamship Company, Inc, and was also the agent of the following: named com= panies, all of which were American corporations, the Upper Yangtze Trading Company, the Iehangy Steamship Compaay, and the Chung King Terminal Company, and that luring the month of October, 1925,
Rapid Steamship Company Federal the. plainti herein, the Yangtze Inc, U.S.A, took over and pur chased all right, title snd interest and to each of suid companies: respectively. That the plaintif® anc the various companies above named, which the plaintiff herein took over ay aforesaid, and the C. R. Cox Company, Me, one of the defence ants herein, ever since January J, 1925, had an oral agreement. bee tween them whereby the said Cox Company, Me, was to act as the agent of the piaintif, and was to receive from the plaintiff as full compensation for ite services 5 por cent, of the gross freights earned by the plaintiff's vessels; that the defendant, C. R. Cox Company, Inc, further' agreed with the plaintiff herein, under such oral contract, to pay all the expenses. in connexion with the operation of offices at: Tehang and Chungking, office assistants, and all expenses other than' the actual operating expenses. of the various ships belonging to the plaintiff'; that the said C. R. Cox Company, Me, earvied on and acted as the agent of the plaintiff herein, under and pursuant to such oral agreement and contract, and that during the existence of such agone; the C. R. Cox Company, Me, re: ceived large sums of money belong-to the plaintiff and its subsidiary companies hereinbefore named, amounting in the aggregate to about Tis, 1,500,000, of which sim 30. received, the defendants, falsely and fraudulently converted! to their own use a sum far in excess of Tls. 100,000. Tt is alleged in the Seventh paragraph of the complaint that this som of far in excors of Tls. 100,000 was falsely and fraudulently converted by the defendants to their own use by vendering and making false. and Ati and. falsely ing the plaintiff with large arns of money, which the defendts never paid out or expended for and on account of the plaintiff; by accepting numerous deposits from employees of the" plaintiff, and making, no account therefore, and by making false and fictitious entries of charges in defendants' books of account against the plaintiff, and by various other ways and means. It is alleged that the plaintiff? has performed all the terms of* its agreement with the defendants, ahd has paid to said defendants, and each of them, all. of the monies and conimiseions due them under said oral agreement, and that-numerous demands have been made upon the defendants for an accounting, which demands have been refused, The case came regularly on. for hearing before the court at Shanghai on October 14, 1926, upon a motion by the plaintiff for judgment default against the C. R, Cox Company, Me, no service having been made upon the individual defendant Charles R. Cox, for the reason that he was not found within the Jurisdiction of the court, as shown by the Marshal's return. It appears from the Marshal's return of service upon the company, that on August 11, 1926, at " Shanghai, China, the above named defendant, the C. R. Cox Company, Me, was served with a copy of the summons and complaint in this action by showing to one Hunter Mann the original and handing to him a copy! of both the writ and complaint filed herein. It further appears from the certificate of the Consul-General of the United States of America at! Hankow, China, that on April 17, 1926, the C. R,'Cox Company, Me., furnished the American Consul-General at Hankow information xelative to its application for registration of the C. R, Cox Company, Me., under the China Trade Act. ' The' letter transmitting this information to the American Consul-General at Hankow is stamped "C. R. Cox Company, Inc.," and signed by Hunter Mann, and in that letter Charles R. Cox is named as president of this corps Eleanor M, Cox Hunter Mann the secretary and treasurer. In my opinion the Marjshal's return of service taken in. connexion with this evidence, that Hunter Mann was the secretary and treasurer of this defendant corporation on April 17, 1926, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court over the person and property of the defendant, the C, R. Cox Company, Me, Pindings of Fact (1) Tt appears from the evi ence, and I so find, that each and all of the allegations contained in the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Sth, Gth, and 8th paragraphs of plaintiffs complaint ave true; I further find og a fact that during the existence of the verbal contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the C. R. Cox Company, Inc, collected freight charges inthe sum of Tis, 6,961.35 belonging to the plaint and which the defendant company! failed to account for and pay over to the plaintiff as it was required todo inde the terms of said verbal (2) That between January 1 1925, and April 30, 1926, the de: fendant, the C. R.'Cox Company, Me,, made over-charzes against the plaintiff on account of salaries al ewed to have been said to its godown staff employees in the sum of Tis, 3,415, which sum of money!
foneously and improperly by the plaintiff to the defend-riy as and for a part of sot godown staff emind fraudulently appro-the defendant company to its own use, (2) That the defendant, th R. Cox Company, Me., falsely and fraudulently reported us expenses for the months of Apr 1926, sum Jed in the aggregate to Tls. 16435.50 130,000 was to have in excess pended by the defendant during the Postponed wi the for and on behalf of the plaintiff, and that the defendant company received credit in the amount of said sum for and on ace count of such expenses which it was: not entitled to ret That the defendant wrong-plaintiff with Tis, 62390, as and for unlawfully charged the
the salary of a compradore Chamgking for 'a "period of 18 months from October March 31, 1926, at Tis, 335 "po month, and which sum plainti was required to pay: tothe defendant company, whereas such expense should Wave been paid by the defendant under the contract then in existence between the parties, (5) Tha; the defendant company unlawfully, wrongfully and fraudu-Jently charged the plainti wit as agency commission. on and every ship up-bound on the Yangtze at Chungking, amount. ing in the aggregate to Tls. 4,175, but which agency commission had
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.