Bay View Homestead Ass'n v. Williams

I do not understand the facts of the case in all respects as they are recited in the opinion of the majority of the Court, nor do I concur in the conclusions therein announced. The money which was in the hands of Williams, as the treasurer of the plaintiff, although it had been raised for the purpose of complying with the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the railroad company, had not been appropriated by the plaintiff to that purpose. It was known to the directors of the plaintiff that Williams was the equitable owner of the larger part of the stock of the railroad company, and that he had expended the sum of money which came to his hands as treasurer, in works on the railroad, but the railroad company had neither acknowledged the receipt of the money, nor had it executed the bond conditioned for the maintenance of the railroad, for the period of ten years, as contemplated by the parties. At the time when the first note was given, this was the condition in which the matters appeared: Williams was the equitable owner of nearly all the stock of the railroad company; he had expended the money which came to his hands, as the treasurer of the plaintiff, in improvements…

On the 1st day of March, 1869-, the plaintiff was a homestead corporation, owning lands in the suburbs of the city of San Francisco, and the Potrero and Bay View Bailroad Company was a corporation then owning and operating a line of street cars from the more populous parts of the city to or in the direction of the plaintiff’s lands. At that time the defendant Williams was the treasurer of the corporation plaintiff, and on that day the defendant Graves made a proposition in writing to the plaintiff, representing that he had made arrangements and intended to purchase a controlling interest in the stock of the railroad company, and proposed to extend and improve the road and to reduce the fares thereon in certain specified particulars, provided satisfactory arrangements could be made with the plaintiff and several other corporations, “for pecuniary aid and moral support in the undertaking.” Thereupon the trustees of the corporation plaintiff adopted a resolution reciting that the association had by resolution authorized them to agree upon such terms as they should deem advisable with the railroad company to aid in the improvement of the road, and that the railroad company had…