Sterling Industries, Inc. v. Ball Bearing Pen Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
I. The Appellate Division erred in holding that the action of the president in instituting this action is supported by the doctrine of prima facie authority. The authority to institute any action on behalf of the corporation is vested by law and agreement of the parties in plaintiff’s board of directors. (Mcllrath v. Waterbury & Sons Go., 193 App.
Read the full summary
I. The Appellate Division erred in holding that the action of the president in instituting this action is supported by the doctrine of prima facie authority. The authority to institute any action on behalf of the corporation is vested by law and agreement of the parties in plaintiff’s board of directors. (Mcllrath v. Waterbury & Sons Go., 193 App. Div. 491; McQuade v. Stoneham, 263 N. T. 323; Long Park, Inc., v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Go., 297 N. Y. 174; People ex rel. Manice v. Powell, 201 N. Y. 194; United Copper Securities Go. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 244 TJ. S. 261; Koral v.…
1Opinion of the CourtConway, J.
The plaintiff corporation was formed in 1946, by two groups of men who were to share equally in its control. The first group were representatives of the defendant Ball Bearing Pen Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Pen Co.). The other group consisted of one Middleman, later elected president of plaintiff, and others named Shindel and Golub. Each group was represented by its own counsel who participated in the organization. The charter and by-laws were finally adopted after consultation between counsel for both groups. In order that the control of the corporation might be shared equally…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Manson v. . CurtisNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Kalmanash v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- McQuade v. StonehamNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Benintendi v. Kenton Hotel, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. GanimSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Seifert v. Dumatic Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Rothman & Schneider, Inc. v. BeckermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- West View Hills, Inc. v. Lizau Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1959
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.