Brophy v. American Brewing Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1900, No. 587, on verdict for defendant in case of Edward J. Brophy v. American Brewing Company of Philadelphia. Assumpsit for services rendered. Before Willson, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T. 1900, No. 587, on verdict for defendant in case of Edward J. Brophy v. American Brewing Company of Philadelphia. Assumpsit for services rendered. Before Willson, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial the plaintiff presented these points : 1. If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff, Edward J. Brophy, rendered services to the company defendant as its manager or superintendent, from the time of its incorporation in May, 1897, until January, 1901,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The plaintiff and the other organizers of the corporation defendant, in order to conceal their connection with it, placed their stock in the names of persons who had no interest in it, but held it solely for them. The real owners of the stock had exclusive control of the affairs of the corporation. The plaintiff during the whole period for which he claimed compensation for services was an acting director and a member of the executive committee of the board of directors. He came therefore within the reason of the settled rule that a corporate officer cannot repover compensation for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Carville v. A. F. Bornot & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Wilson v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Kleinschmidt v. American Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1914
- Althouse v. Cobaugh Colliery Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Culp v. Independent Card Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.