Legal Opinion

Fontaine v. Brown County Motors Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1947PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRector, J.

The questions are:

1. Was the option agreement invalid because it was not authorized at a corporate meeting by a majority of the stockholders ?

2. May a'court of equity refuse specific performance upon the ground that it would be harsh and oppressive and, if so, was it properly refused under the facts of this case ?

The company, relies upon sec. 180.11, Stats., to establish that it could not validly enter into the option agreement without a vote of a majority of its stockholders authorizing such action. The statute reads:

“ (2) Transfers of property. Every corporation may, by a vote of a majority…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Willard v. TayloeSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. Matter of TimmisNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Marvin v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Consolidated Water Power Co. v. NashWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Mulligan v. AlbertzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. HMO-W INC. v. SSM Health Care SystemWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Sutherland v. Kaonohi Ohana, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  3. Linker & Herbert, Inc. v. MarshallDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1955
  4. R.C.R. Corp. v. Bank of Middleton (In re R.C.R. Corp.)District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
  5. Tesmer v. CHARTER FILMS, INC.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API