Pfeiffer v. Lansberg Brake Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The two offices held by the plaintiff, viz., those of secretary and director of the defendant corporation, were separate and distinct, and,. even in the absence of express provision, there would have been an implied contract for compensation for the services rendered by him as secretary, notwithstanding that he was also a director.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The two offices held by the plaintiff, viz., those of secretary and director of the defendant corporation, were separate and distinct, and,. even in the absence of express provision, there would have been an implied contract for compensation for the services rendered by him as secretary, notwithstanding that he was also a director. Rogers v. Hastings, etc., Co., 22 Minn. 25; Ten Eyelet).Pontiac Co., 3 Law. Ann. Rep. 378; Schaclcelford v. Railroad, 37 Miss. 202; Mining Ass'n t. Meredith, 49 Md. 389 ; Chandler t.…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was an action for the reasonable value of the services of the plaintiff as secretary of the defendant corporation for the period of one year. At the close of the evidence the court directed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover. He thereupon took a nonsuit with leave to move to set it aside, and, having made the motion unsuccessfully, brings the case here by appeal.
Payment of his services was resisted on the ground that, during the period within which the services were rendered, he was a director of the company, and that there was no by-law, resolution or contract of the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Jones v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Pew v. First National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- New York & New Haven Railroad v. KetchumSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
- Cheeney v. Lafayette, Bloomington & Mississippi Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Hall v. Vermont & Massachusetts RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- McConnell v. Combination Mining & Milling Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Taussig v. St. Louis & Kirkwood RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Kleinschmidt v. American Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1914
- Wagner v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Bell v. Peper Tobacco Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.