A. E. Hoss and Sullens & Hoss, Inc., a Corporation v. C. G. (Jim) Purinton

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska awarding damages to Purinton on the special findings of a jury on two causes of action. One cause of action, which we first consider, was for advances made by Purinton at the request and for the benefit of appellants for which the jury found them liable.

(A) The liability of appellants for advances by Purinton.

Appellant Sullens and Hoss is a corporation. It and Hoss owned and operated a lumber mill through a corporation, Timber, Inc., which they created and controlled. Purinton was the superintendent of the mill and made advances of moneys for its operation which the ju *106 ry’s special verdict held amounted to $2,306.81, an amount not questioned here by the parties.

Appellants contended at the trial that Purinton was not entitled to recover for his advances for expenses of running the sawmill because of the terms of an express contract providing for his compensation out of the profits of the mill. Purinton voided this contract when he filed the instant suit.

The trial judge, in instructing the jury, stated:

The jury was instructed to give no effect to the contract in reaching…

(dissenting).

Basic to my line of reasoning is the finding in this case, which is the law of the case, that Timber, Inc. was merely the alter ego of Hoss; that this supposed corporation was only a shell and that not only this but the other corporation as well were mere conduits for Hoss’ own business. The judgment against Hoss individually is based upon this finding that it was Hoss who was doing all these acts and carrying on all this business. This finding is reflected in the judgment against Hoss individually for holding him personally could be sustained on that ground only.

It follows from this that when Purinton, the plaintiff, entered into the sawmill and lumber operation he was dealing in truth and in fact with Hoss who was the real party to the arrangement, although the latter purported to utilize the names of these corporations merely as a false front. It is therefore my opinion that since the judgment proceeds upon the theory that this was an arrangement between Purinton and Hoss, it must be considered as an arrangement between two individuals. Whether the named corporations did or did not comply with the various Alaska statutes for filing and paying the fees is…

229 F.2d 104 A. E. HOSS and Sullens & Hoss, Inc., a corporation, Appellants, v. C. G. (Jim) PURINTON, Appellee. No. 14387. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. December 21, 1955. Rehearing Denied January 9, 1956. Writ of Certiorari Denied March 26, 1956. See 76 S.Ct. 547 . Bell & Sanders, Bailey E. Bell, William H. Sanders, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellants. Wendell P. Kay, John Rader, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges. DENMAN, Chief Judge. 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska awarding damages to Purinton on the special findings of a jury on two causes of action. One cause of action, which we first consider, was for advances made by Purinton at the request and for the benefit of appellants for which the jury found them liable. 2 (A) The liability of appellants for advances by Purinton. 3 Appellant Sullens and Hoss is a corporation. It and Hoss owned and operated a lumber mill through a corporation, Timber, Inc., which they created and controlled. Purinton was the superintendent of the mill and made advances of moneys for its operation which…