Carter v. Producers & Refiners Oil Co., Ltd.
Decision Date | 22 October 1894 |
Docket Number | 82 |
Citation | 164 Pa. 463,30 A. 391 |
Parties | John J. Carter v. Producers & Refiners Oil Co., Ltd., et al., Appellants |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Argued October 10, 1894
Appeal, No. 82, July T., 1894, by defendant, from decree of C.P. Crawford Co., May T., 1894, No. 1, granting preliminary injunction. Affirmed.
Bill for injunction to restrain managers of limited partnership association from selling business and property of company.
The court below stated the facts as follows:
The court -- citing Bedford R.R. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. 29; Balliet v. Brown, 103 Pa. 546; 1 Morawetz on Corp. §§ 249, 513; Beach on Corp. § 357; Martin v. Ry., 14 Phila. 10; McCurdy v. Myers, 44 Pa. 535; Lauman v. R.R., 30 Pa. 42; Abbott v. Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 578; Sloan v. Moore, 37 Pa. 217; McNair v. Wilcox, 121 Pa. 437; Wallace v. Yeager, 4 Phila. 251; Taylor on Corp. §§ 226, 288; Hoole v. Ry., L.R. 3 Ch. Ap. 262; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 Howard, 341; Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen, 52; Gray v. Lewis, L.R. 8 Eq. 526; Green's Ultra Vires, 647; March v. Ry., 40 N.H. 548; Spelling, Ext. Rel. §§ 590, 760; Ry. v. Rushout, 10 E.L. & E. Rep. 72; Ryan v. Ry., 12 Randolph, 365, to the effect that directors are limited to the management and not the sale of the business -- awarded a preliminary injunction and subsequently continued it until further order.
Errors assigned were above orders, quoting them.
The decree continuing the preliminary injunction is affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellants.
Roger Sherman, J. W. Lee and Clarence Walker with him, for appellants. -- Plaintiff, not being a subscriber to the capital of defendant company, and having never become the purchaser of any interest in its capital, cannot be elected to membership; hence cannot, through the courts or otherwise, control his copartners, or the managers they have chosen, in the conduct of the business committed by the law to their judgment and discretion: Acts of June 2, 1874, §§ 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, P.L. 271; June 25, 1885, § 4, P.L. 182; May 1, 1876, § 1, P.L. 89; Morawetz on Corp. §§ 281, 258, 259, 381, 383, 385; Angell & Ames on Corp. § 113; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 126; Anderson's Law Dictionary, p. 974, 975 and 977; Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U.S. 450; Tindel v. Park, 154 Pa. 36; Tidewater Pipe Co., Ltd., v. Kitchenman, 108 Pa. 630; Satterfield v. Tidewater Pipe Co., Ltd., 12 W.N. 457; Karnes v. R.R., 4 Abbott's Pr. R., N.S. 106; Goodwin v. Hardy, 57 Maine, 143; Eliot v. Himrod, 108 Pa. 569-579.
The association had power to adopt to reasonable and lawful by-laws, or rules, for the government of its internal affairs and details of business, both by express provision of and implication from the act of 1874, and by the general rules of law applicable to corporations and similar bodies: Lindley on Part. 566; Peacock v. Chambers, 46 Pa. 435; Tidewater Pipe Co. v. Kitchenman, 108 Pa. 630; Satterfield v. Tidewater Pipe Co., 12 W.N. 457; Patterson v. Tidewater Pipe Co., 12 W.N. 452; Story on Part. § 123; Ins. Co. v. Perrine, 7 W. & S. 348; Logan v. McNaugher, 88 Pa. 103; Phila. Savings Institution, 1 Whart. 460-468; Diligent Fire Co. v. Com., 75 Pa. 291; Wolf v. Goddard, 9 Watts, 544; Angell & Ames on Corp. § 342.
The proposed sale was not ultra vires: Act of June 2, 1874, § 1, P.L. 271; Story on Part. §§ 94, 101, 123; Angell & Ames on Corp. §§ 187, 190, 193, 194; Corporation of St. Mary's Church, 7 S. & R. 517; Com. v. Lancaster, 5 Watts, 152; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, pp. 65, 66, 69, 91; Reynolds v. Stark Co., 5 Ohio 205; Barry v. Bank, 1 Sand. Ch. N.Y. 280; Brady v. Mayor, 1 Barb. 585; Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 12 Allen, 326; Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. Mass. Glass Co., 111 Mass. 315; Morawetz on Corporations, §§ 164, 241, 387; Burton's Ap., 57 Pa. 218; Gravestine's Pa., 49 Pa. 310; Layng v. French Spring Co., Ltd., 149 Pa. 308; Patterson v. Tidewater Pipe Co., Ltd., 12 W.N. 452; Dana v. Bank, 5 W. & S. 223-243.
A. Leo Weil and Jas. H. Reed, Pearson Church, Samuel Grumbine, Geo. F. Davenport and P. C. Knox, with them, for appellee. -- This is an attempted consolidation and ultra vires: 1 Beach on Corp. §§ 326, 353; Black v. Canal Co., 24 N.J. Eq. 455; Small v. Minneapolis Electro-Matrix Co., 45 Minn. 264; Knoxville v. R.R., 22 F. 763; Drew's Case, 16 L.T.R. 657; Assurance Co., 30 L.J. (N.S.) 137; Mowrey v. R.R., 4 Bissel, 78; Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wal. 40; Nugent v. Supervisors, 19 Wal. 248; Lauman v. R.R., 30 Pa. 42.
Treating the transaction as a sale it is ultra vires: Abbott v American Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 578; Buford v. Packet Co., 3 Mo. Ap. 159; Balliet v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldstein v. Groesbeck
...666, 85 L.Ed. 975. Such appears also to be the general view, Holmes v. Camp, 180 App.Div. 409, 167 N.Y.S. 840; Carter v. Producers' & Refiners' Oil Co., 164 Pa. 463, 30 A. 391; Glenn, The Stockholder's Suit, 33 Yale L.J. 580, 586; 50 Harv.L.Rev. 963, and to be quite within the spirit of equ......
-
Commonwealth ex rel. Hensel v. Severn
... ... C.P. Schuykill Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 147, on writ of quo ... warranto ... ...