Mathews v. Fort Valley Cotton Mills
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtKussell, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
1. The fixing, voting, and paying of the salaries involved in this case, as detailed in the petition and its amendments against the Fort Valley Cotton Mills, were legal, and the court erred in dismissing the petition upon the demurrers asserting the contrary. It appears that the Cotton Mills for more than ten years had only three so-called directors, who together owned or controlled all of the shares of stock, and all concurred in the passage of the resolutions assigning a salary to the plaintiff's testator. Not only did no stockholder interpose or suggest…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Home Fire Insurance v. BarberNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Dimpfell v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Alexander v. SearcySupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Potts-Thompson Liquor Co. v. PottsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Garmany v. LawtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bloodworth v. BloodworthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
- Chalverus v. Wilson Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1956
- Elliott v. LindquistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Howard v. Eatonton Co-Operative Feed Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1970
- Hurt v. Cotton States Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1947
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.