bartle v. westerlea builders(巴图诉有家者).doc

127 N.E.2d 832FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLYPage 9309 N.Y. 103, 127 N.E.2d 832309 N.Y. 103, 127 N.E.2d 832BARTLE v. HOME OWNERS COOPERATIVE巴顿诉有家者N.Y. 1955.Court of Appeals of New York（纽约上诉法庭）.Newton D. BARTLE, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Westerlea Builders, Inc., Appellant,牛顿D巴顿，Westerlea Builders破产受托人，上诉人v.HOME OWNERS COOPERATIVE, Inc., Respondent.有家者，被上诉人July 8, 1955.Case name or Caption（判例的名称或抬头）Action to compel(迫使) corporation to meet obligations(履行义务) of its subsidiary（子公司）. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 285 App.Div. 1113, 140 N.Y.S.2d 512, affirmed judgment（生效判决） of Supreme Court, Equity（资产） TermThe period during which a court tries only equity cases（此期间内，法院只审理资产个案）, Onondaga(奥内达加) County, Donald P. Gorman, J., dismissing complaint（原告的指控）, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Froessel, J., held that trustee（受托人） of bankrupt subsidiary corporation could not maintain action to compel parent corporation（母公司） to meet obligations of its subsidiary, where there had been neither fraud, misrepresentation（虚假陈述） nor illegality（非法行为） involved in incorporation（法人） of such subsidiary or its subsequent（随后的） operation（经营）.请求母公司公司对其子公司履行义务的诉讼。最高法院，上诉科，第四部门，号文件，最高院生效判决，资产个案期，奥内达加县，唐纳德P格曼法官，驳回原告起诉，原告上诉。上诉法院，佛塞尔法官认为子公司破产受托人不能通过继续诉讼来迫使母公司对其子公司履行义务，因为子公司的法人组织或其随后的经营活动中并没有欺诈、虚假陈述或违法的行为存在。Judgment affirmed.Van Voorhis, J., dissented（持有异议的）.Syllabus or Prefatory Statement（判例总结）West Headnotes1Corporations 101 14(1)Key number system101 Corporations101I Incorporation and Organization 101k12 General Laws101k14 Purposes of Incorporation101k14(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesThe law permits incorporation of a business for very purpose of escaping personal liability. 法律允许个人通过设立公司的方式逃避债务。2 Corporations 101 1.4(1)101 Corporations101I Incorporation and Organization101k1.4 Disregarding Corporate Entity101k1.4(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 101k1)Doctrine（原则） of piercing corporate veil（揭开公司的面纱） is invoked（援用） to prevent fraud or to achieve equity（实现公正）. “揭开公司的面纱”的原则是为了防止欺骗或实现公正。3 Bankruptcy 51 2154.151 Bankruptcy51II Courts; Proceedings in General51II(B) Actions and Proceedings in General51k2154 Rights of Action by or on Behalf of Trustee or Debtor51k2154.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 51k2154, 51k282)Trustee of bankrupt subsidiary corporation could not maintain action to compel parent corporation to meet obligations of such subsidiary, where there had been neither fraud, misrepresentation nor illegality involved in incorporation of such subsidiary or its subsequent operation.子公司破产受托人不能通过继续诉讼来迫使母公司对其子公司履行义务，因为子公司的法人组织或其随后的经营活动中并没有欺诈、虚假陈述或违法的行为存在。Topics and Headnotes（分类标题及法律摘要）Vincent A. ONeil, Brooklyn, and Paul J. Shea, Syracuse, for appellant (上诉人).Richard T. Mosher, Syracuse, for respondent（被上诉人）.Names of the Attorneys who represented the parties（代理律师的姓名）FROESSEL, Judge.Presiding Judges（主审法官）The Opinion Begins（法庭判决意见）Plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy of Westerlea Builders, Inc., has by means of this litigation attempted to hold defendant（被告人） liable for（对负有责任） the contract debts of Westerlea, defendants wholly owned subsidiary. Defendant, as a co-operative corporation composed mostly of veterans（退役军人）, was organized in July, 1947, for the purpose of providing low-cost housing（低成本住房） for its members. Unable to secure a contractor to undertake construction of the housing planned, Westerlea was organized for that purpose on June 5, 1948. With building costs running considerably（相当大地） higher than anticipated（预期的）, Westerlea, as it proceeded with construction on some 26 houses, found itself in a difficult financial situation. On January 24, 1949, the creditors（债权人）, pursuant（根据） to an extension agreement, took over（接管） the construction responsibilities. Nearly four years later, in October, 1952, Westerlea was adjudicated（宣判） a bankrupt. Meanwhile, defendant had contributed to Westerlea not only its original capital of $25,000 but additional sums amounting to $25,639.38.原告，作为Westerlea Builders，Inc的破产受托人，试图以诉讼的方式让被告人对其全资子公司Westerlea的合同之债承担责任。被告，一个大部分由退役军人组成的合作企业，为了给它的成员提供低成本住房而成立于1947年7月.因不能保证承包方能按计划承包住房施工任务，故Westerlea于1948年6月5日成立。由于建筑成本较预期大幅度增加，随着26所住房的施工任务的展开，Westerlea陷入了财务危机中。1949年1月24日，债权人根据延期协议接手了工程责任。近四年过后，1952年10月，Westerlea被宣告破产。至此，被告不只在Westerlea成立时投资了25,000美元的原始资本，后续更增加了总共25,639.38美元的额外投资。Plaintiffs principal(主要) contention（论点） on this appeal is that the courts below (下级法院)erred in refusing to pierce the corporate veil of Westerleas corporate existence; as subordinate grounds for recovery he urged that the defendant equitably （衡平地）pledged(抵押) its assets toward the satisfaction of the debts of the bankrupts creditors, and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment(不当得利) should apply.原告在上诉中的主要观点是：一、下级法院拒绝针对Weaterlea的公司存在“揭开公司的面纱”的决定是错误的；二、他强烈要求被告将资产衡平地进行抵押，以偿还债权人的债务，那正是不正当得利规定应当适用的情形。The trial court(初审法庭) made detailed findings of fact which have been unanimously(无异议的) affirmed by the Appellate Division, 285 App.Div. 1113, 140 N.Y.S.2d 512, which are clearly supported by the evidence, and by which we are bound. If found that while the defendant, as owner of the stock(股票) of Westerlea, controlled its affairs, the outward(对外) indicia(标识) of these two separate corporations was at all times maintained during the period in which the creditors extended credit; that the creditors were in no wise misled; that there was no fraud; and that the defendant performed no act causing injury to the creditors（债权人） of Westerlea by depletion(损耗) of assets or otherwise. The trial court also held that the creditors were estopped（禁止反言） by the extension agreement（延期协议） from disputing(质疑) the separate corporate identities.初审法院针对案件事实做了详细的调查并被上诉科无异议的通过了，有强有力的证据和我们所受的约束来支持。调查发现被告人作为Weaterlea股票的持有人，掌管着它的经营事宜，两个公司的对外标识在债权延长债务期限的期间始终存续着；债权人没有被误导；被告不存在欺诈行为；被告没有因为通过损耗财产等行为造成对Westerlea债权人的损害。初审法院还认为延期协议让债权人丧失了对独立公司的身份的质疑的反言机会。123 We agree with the courts below. The law permits the incorporation of a business for the very purpose of escaping personal liability, Natelson v. A. B. L. Holding Co., 260 N.Y. 233, 238, 183 N.E. 373, 374;Rapid Transit Subway Const. Co. v. City of New York, 259 N.Y. 472, 488, 182 N.E. 145, 150. Generally speaking, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is invoked(援用) to prevent fraud or to achieve equity, International Aircraft(飞行器) Trading Co. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 297 N.Y. 285, 292, 79 N.E.2d 249, 252. See Halsted v. Globe Indemnity Co., 258 N.Y. 176, 179, 179 N.E. 376, 377;Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N.Y. 319, 324, 172 N.E. 521, 522, 74 A.L.R. 205;Quaid v. Ratkowsky, 183 App.Div. 428, 170 N.Y.S. 812,affirmed224 N.Y. 624, 121 N.E. 887. But in the instant(当下的) case there has been neither fraud, misrepresentation nor illegality. Defendants purpose in placing its construction(建筑) operation into a separate corporation was clearly within the limits of our public policy（在公共政策范围内）.我们同意下层法院的意见：法律允许个人一成立公司的方式逃避个人债务，通常来说，“揭开公司的面纱”是被用来“制止欺诈或实现公正的”，但是在本次的案件中，既没有欺诈或虚假陈述，也没有违法行为。被告将工程项目的经营放置在子公司的目的在公共政策规定的范围内是被允许的。The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.维持原判，诉讼费请求不予支持。VAN VOORHIS, Judge (dissenting异议).The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed（撤销） on the law, as it seems to me（在我看来）, and plaintiff should have judgment declaring defendant to be liable for the debts of the bankrupt, Westerlea Builders, Inc., and that defendant holds its real property subject to（处于中） the claims（申索） of creditors of Westerlea. Not only is Westerlea a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Home Owners, having the same directors（董事） and management, but also and of primary importance, business was done on such a basis that Westerlea could not make a profit. Home Owners owned a residential subdivision（居住区）; Westerlea was organized as a building corporation to erect（建立） homes for stockholders（股东） of Home Owners upon lots（地块） in this tract（地块）. Home Owners arranged with Westerlea for the construction of houses and then would sell the lots on which such houses had been erected to Home Owners stockholders at prices fixed by Home Owners price policy committee（定价委员会） in such amounts as to make no allowance for profit by Westerlea. The object（目的） was to benefit Home Owners stockholders by enabling them to obtain their houses at cost, with no builders profit.上诉科的判决根据法律应当被撤销，因为在我看来，原告主张被告承担破产债务是于法有据的，Westerlea Builders，Inc，被告将它的不动财是处于Westerlea的债权人的申索当中的。子公司Westerlea不只完全附属于被告Home Owner，有着同样的董事和管理层，更是有着其他至关重要的作用的。Westerlea在这样一个基础之上所从事的经营活动是不可能盈利的。Home Owner拥有一片居住区；Westerlea的成立目的就是在这块土地上建立住宅并提供给Home Owner的股东。Home Owner和Westerlea共同策划住宅的建设，之后将在Home Owner的定价委员会制定的价格下将住宅出售给股东们。它的目的在于使Home Owner的股东通过成本价购买住宅获益。The consequence is that described by Latty, Subsidiaries and Affiliated Corporations at pages 138-139: The subsidiaries had, to begin with, nothing, made nothing, and could only end up with nothing. It is not surprising that the parent was held liable in each case. And again: This set-up（体制） is often, though not necessarily, found in combination with a scheme whereby（由此） the corporation cannot possibly make profits (or can at the most make only nominal（微不足道的） profits), and whereby all the net income（净利润） in the course of（在之中） the corporations business is drained off（被用尽） as operating charges（费用） of one sort or another. The presence of this additional factor should remove（消除） any doubt that may remain as to the right of the creditor of the corporation not to be limited to the corporate assets for the satisfaction（清偿） of his debt.结果就如同Latty在子公司与联合公司 的138页至139页中描述的一样：子公司成立的时候一无所有，经营中一无所成，于是破产的时候还是一无所有。在这几个案子中，母公司都是承担责任的，这并不令人惊讶。还有：“这种建立形式虽然不是必须的，但常见于其和一个计划相结合，所以在这种情况下公司几乎不能盈利（或是微不足道的利润），所有的净利润也在公司的经营活动中被用作运营费用消耗掉了。”由于这种附加因素的出现，我们应当毫无疑问地认定，公司的债权人的债务获得清偿的权利不会被局限于公司的财产。In the present instance, Westerlea was organized with a small capital（资本） supplied by Home Owners, which soon became exhausted. Thereafter, it had no funds and could acquire none over and beyond the actual cost of the houses which it was building for stockholders of Home Owners. Those stockholders obtained the entire benefit of Westerleas operations by obtaining these houses at cost. Not only was Westerlea allowed no opportunity to make money, but it was placed in a position such that if its business were successful and times remained good, it would break even, otherwise it would inevitably become insolvent（破产的）. The stockholders of Home Owners became the beneficiaries（受益人） of its insolvency. This benefit to the stockholders of Home Owners was analogous（类似的） to dividends（分配金）, at least it was something of value（价值） which was obtained by them from Home Owners by virtue（由于） of their stock ownership（所有权）. Under the circumstances, this benefit to its stockholders was a benefit to Home Owners as a corporation.在本案中，Westerlea是由Home Owners提供的小额资本组建起来的，因此才会在不久之后就出现亏空。在那之后，Westerlea没有了资金，也没有得到为