Brinson v. Mill Supply Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBaenhill, J.
Was the act of the officers of the defendant corporation, in authorizing and executing the contract of guaranty, ultra vires as contended by the receiver? The court below so concluded. In this conclusion we concur.
For a contract executed by the officer of a corporation to be binding on the corporation it must appear that (1) it was incidental to the business of the corporation; or (2) it was expressly authorized; and (3) it was properly executed.
The charter of the defendant corporation vests it with general authority to acquire, own, mortgage, sell and otherwise deal in real estate, chattels…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Northside Railway Co. v. WorthingtonTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- W. C. Bowman Lumber Co. v. PiersonTexas Supreme Court · 1920
- Hunter v. GaranfloSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Victor v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Cameron County Lumber Co. v. Al & Lloyd Parker, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, Professional Ass'nSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Wilson v. Crab Orchard Development CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. FoilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Crosland-Cullen CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956
- Cooper v. Marwil, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989