Fontaine v. Brown County Motors Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Willard v. TayloeSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Matter of TimmisNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Marvin v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Consolidated Water Power Co. v. NashWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Mulligan v. AlbertzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- HMO-W INC. v. SSM Health Care SystemWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
- Sutherland v. Kaonohi Ohana, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Linker & Herbert, Inc. v. MarshallDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1955
- R.C.R. Corp. v. Bank of Middleton (In re R.C.R. Corp.)District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
- Tesmer v. CHARTER FILMS, INC.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.