Brindley v. Walker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 10, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 125, for defendants on demurrer to answer in mandamus proceedings in case of Zachary T. Brindley v. Edwin Walker, Clarence L. Walker and Erie Specialty Company. Petition for mandamus. Demurrer to answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 10, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 125, for defendants on demurrer to answer in mandamus proceedings in case of Zachary T. Brindley v. Edwin Walker, Clarence L. Walker and Erie Specialty Company. Petition for mandamus. Demurrer to answer. The following facts appear from the opinion of the court below: The Erie Specialty Company is a business corporation duly chartered in 1902, under the general act of April 29, 1874, and its supplements, and located at Erie, Pa. It has an authorized capital stock of $100,000, divided into 1,000…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinión by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
By the action of the board of directors of the defendant corporation the appellant was removed, without cause being assigned, from the office of secretary and treasurer to which he had been elected by the board. He seeks by this proceeding to be reinstated, on the ground that in removing him the directors exceeded their power. The general rule with respect to officers in private corporations such as this is, that all below the grade of directors, and such other officers as are elected by the corporation at large, hold their offices durante bene plácito, and are…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Bruch v. National Guarantee Credit Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1922
- Fournier v. FournierSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984
- Llewellyn v. Aberdeen Brewing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
- Kaplan v. BlockSupreme Court of Virginia · 1944
- Spahn v. Bielefeld & Spahn Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.