Francis Oil & Refining Co. v. David A. Manville & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The questions here presented are well considered in the opinion of Judge Learned Hand. We agree with him that the agreement between the parties is of a fiduciary nature, which obligated defendant to account to plaintiff.
We think, also, that the agreement, displayed in the contract dated March 10, 1922, was not one which could be made by the president of plaintiff without authority of the directors or the corporation, and there is no -evidence that such authority was given or that there was any acquiescence by the directors or the corporation in any of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wetmore v. . PorterNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Davis v. Las Ovas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Stewart v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Primeau v. GranfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
- Saylor v. CrookerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
3Cited by4 opinions
- Union Deposit Co. v. MoseleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- David A. Manville & Co. v. Francis Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Schneider v. O'NealDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1956
- Union Electric Co. v. BoehmU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1950