Legal Opinion
Caudell v. Athens Savings Bank
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided October 14, 1913PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Petition for injunction. Before Judge Brand. Clarke superior court. . March 31, 1913.
1Opinion of the CourtFish, C. J.
1. Ordinarily the minutes of a corporation show the formal actions of its directors and stockholders; and before parol evidence thereof can be introduced, they should be produced or accounted for. Parol evidence, however, is admissible to prove the unrecorded acts and transactions of corporations, or of their officers or directors. Bank of Garfield v. Clark, 138 Ga. 798 (7), 799 (76 S. E. 95) ; Fouché v. Bank, 110 Ga. 827 (6), 850 (36 S. E. 256); Ten Eyck v. Pontiac etc. R. Co., 74 Mich. 226 (41 N. W. 905, 3 L. R. A. 378, 16 Am. St. R. 633); 2 Thomp. Corp. (2d ed.) §§ 1842, 1847. See also…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Handley v. StutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, Oxford & Port Austin RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Fouche & Fouche v. Merchants National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Bank of Garfield v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jackson v. Southern Pan & Shoring Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1988
- South Georgia Trust Co. v. CrandallCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Kaylor v. Carrollton BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
- Abercrombie v. Georgia Distributing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
- Brown v. Rutledge & SummerourCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917