Erickson v. Grande Ronde Lumber Co.
162 Or. 556, 94 P.2d 139, 92 P.2d 170 (1939)
Rule of Law:
When a corporation acquires all the assets of another corporation and expressly agrees to assume 'all liabilities' of the transferor, and receives funds intended to cover those liabilities, it is responsible for debts accruing under pre-existing professional service contracts, even if those debts were not fully quantified or recorded at the time of the transfer, and the third-party beneficiary of such services can directly enforce this assumption agreement.
Facts:
- In 1923, Nibley-Mimnaugh Company sold most of its assets, retaining some funds with a trustee (J. F. Eavenscroft) to cover obligations before its dissolution on March 7, 1924.
- Federal income tax deficiencies were asserted against Nibley-Mimnaugh Company (1926) and Grande Ronde Company (1925-1926), which both companies appealed.
- On January 1, 1928, Nibley-Mimnaugh Company's remaining assets were transferred from Eavenscroft to Grande Ronde Company, which expressly agreed to assume and pay Nibley-Mimnaugh Company's income tax liabilities and bear the expenses of contesting them. Grande Ronde Company recorded these assets as a 'Nibley-Mimnaugh Lumber Company Trustee Deposit.'
- In September 1928, Grande Ronde Company employed Erickson, an accountant, to assist with the ongoing federal income tax deficiency appeals for both Grande Ronde Company and Nibley-Mimnaugh Company, agreeing to pay him reasonable compensation.
- On February 21, 1929, Stoddard Lumber Company resolved to acquire all assets of Grande Ronde Company for 3600 shares of its stock and to 'assume all the liabilities of the said The Grande Ronde Lumber Company, except the liability for income tax incurred prior to January 1st, 1929.' Grande Ronde Company accepted this offer on March 11, 1929, and transferred all its assets, including the 'Nibley-Mimnaugh Lumber Company Trustee Deposit' fund, to Stoddard Lumber Company.
- Erickson continued his tax accounting services for Grande Ronde Company's and Nibley-Mimnaugh Company's tax appeals, with Stoddard Lumber Company's officials being aware of his work and paying his expenses from time to time.
- Grande Ronde Company was dissolved on December 30, 1933.
- After the tax matters were resolved, Erickson sent a statement for his services to both Stoddard Lumber Company and Grande Ronde Company on October 5, 1935.
Procedural Posture:
- Erickson sued Stoddard Lumber Company and Grande Ronde Lumber Company in a state trial court (referred to as the circuit court).
- The trial court sustained Stoddard Lumber Company's motion for nonsuit, entering a judgment in its favor.
- The trial court entered a judgment against Grande Ronde Lumber Company for an amount less than sought by Erickson, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Erickson appealed these judgments to the Supreme Court of Oregon, challenging both the nonsuit for Stoddard Lumber Company and the amount awarded against Grande Ronde Lumber Company.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a successor corporation liable for professional services engaged by a predecessor corporation prior to an asset transfer, when the successor agreed to assume 'all liabilities' of the predecessor, a specific fund was transferred to cover some of those liabilities, and the successor corporation had knowledge of the ongoing services?
Opinions:
Majority - Rossman, J.
Yes, Stoddard Lumber Company is liable for Erickson's accounting services. The court first determined that Erickson's professional services were not an 'income tax' itself, and therefore not excluded by the exception for 'liability for income tax incurred prior to January 1st, 1929.' The court recognized that the terms 'liabilities' and 'indebtedness' are 'accordion words' whose meaning must be derived from the context, the transaction, and the subsequent conduct of the parties, rather than a rigid dictionary definition. The court found that several factors indicated Stoddard Lumber Company's intent to include Erickson's accruing debt within the assumed liabilities: (1) the close relationship between Grande Ronde and Stoddard Companies; (2) the knowledge possessed by at least three Stoddard Company directors (including its treasurer and secretary/attorney) that Erickson was performing these services; (3) the fact that Stoddard Lumber Company immediately deprived Grande Ronde Company of all its assets after Erickson commenced his services; (4) the dissolution of Grande Ronde Company in 1933; (5) Stoddard Lumber Company's receipt of the Nibley-Mimnaugh Lumber Company Trustee Deposit, meaning any tax reduction would benefit Stoddard Company; (6) Stoddard Company officials' awareness that the federal government might enforce the underlying tax liabilities against the property received from Grande Ronde Company; and (7) Stoddard Lumber Company's payment of Erickson's expense statements. These facts convinced the court that 'liabilities' included sums that would become due to Erickson at the conclusion of his employment. Furthermore, under Oregon law, a third-party beneficiary (Erickson) can directly enforce a contract where the promisor (Stoddard Lumber Company) receives a fund or property from the promisee (Grande Ronde Company) in consideration for discharging the promisee's obligations. Grande Ronde Company transferred the 'Nibley-Mimnaugh Lumber Company Trustee Deposit' and all other assets to Stoddard Lumber Company, thereby placing sufficient funds in the promisor's hands to discharge all assumed liabilities. It is not essential for a beneficiary to be identified when the contract is made, as a description by class (e.g., 'creditors of Grande Ronde Company') is sufficient, and Erickson was a member of that class. Finally, the court held that no express assent or formal acceptance by the beneficiary is necessary, as assent is presumed, and the act of maintaining the action is sufficient acceptance.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of corporate asset assumption agreements, particularly regarding the scope of 'liabilities' and the rights of third-party beneficiaries. It emphasizes that context, intent, and subsequent conduct are crucial in defining contractual terms, moving beyond a narrow, ledger-based view of indebtedness. By allowing a third party to enforce such an agreement, especially when a successor corporation benefits from the services and receives funds for such obligations, the ruling ensures that corporations cannot easily evade responsibilities by restructuring or transferring assets. This decision provides stronger protection for creditors and service providers in corporate acquisition scenarios, reinforcing the principle that beneficiaries need not be explicitly named or formally accept for rights to vest.
