Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. v. Toponce
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH. The facts in this case were as follows : On June 9,1888, the defendant in error as plaintiff commenced his action in' the District Court of the county of Weber, in the Territory of Utah. His complaint consisted of five counts.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH. The facts in this case were as follows : On June 9,1888, the defendant in error as plaintiff commenced his action in' the District Court of the county of Weber, in the Territory of Utah. His complaint consisted of five counts. The first, for moneys paid out for the defendant; the second, for feeding and caring for certain stock of the defendant; the third, for his services as general manager of the defendant; the fourth and fifth, respectively, a claim for work and labor, and one for board alleged to have been due from defendant to Lea…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beeweb
There are but two questions presented, and they grow out of the claim set forth in the third count of plaintiff’s complaint. That claim is for the sum of $14,750 for services as general manager of the defendant corporation from January 1, 1883, to December 1, 1887. During all this time the plaintiff was a director and the vice-president. It is conceded that there was no express contract or authority for compensation, and it is insisted that all that he did in behalf of the company was within the proper scope of his duties as an officer, or, if not, was done upon the understanding that such…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Red Bud Realty Co. v. SouthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Young v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bagley v. Carthage, Watertown & Sackets Harbor RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Fox v. . Arctic Placer Mining Milling Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Gettinger v. HeaneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.