Deal v. Johnson
Decision Date | 18 August 1978 |
Citation | 362 So.2d 214 |
Parties | Wiley R. DEAL, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Covington Grain Co., a corporation, a Bankrupt v. Rodney R. JOHNSON et al. 77-213. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
G. M. Harrison of Merrill & Harrison, Dothan, for Edward S. Allen of Balch, Bingham, Baker, Hawthorne, Williams & Ward, Birmingham, and for Abner R. Powell, Jr., of Powell & Sikes, Andalusia, for appellant.
Oakley Melton, Jr., of Melton & Espy, Montgomery, for appellee, Rodney R. Johnson.
Maury D. Smith and Charles M. Crook, Montgomery, for McDonald appellees.
Plaintiff, Wiley R. Deal (Trustee), trustee in bankruptcy of Covington Grain Company, appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial and from a verdict and judgment of $15,000 in his favor against defendant Morris E. Rabren, president and director of the bankrupt corporation, from a verdict and judgment in favor of defendants J. E. McDonald and Rodney R. Johnson, directors of the corporation, and from a directed verdict in favor of the other three defendants, stockholders and alleged directors of the corporation.
This appeal is taken only as to Count III of Trustee's complaint which sought damages from the defendants as officers or directors of the Covington Grain Company for their misfeasance or malfeasance in the performance of their corporate duties. It is alleged that the directors relinquished their duties and turned over control of the business to the president, Morris Rabren, and that this amounted to gross negligence. As a result of this gross negligence, it is claimed, the company lost $640,592 through speculative commodity contracts entered into by Rabren.
The Trustee's position, as stated in his reply brief, is as follows:
In answer thereto, the defendants McDonald and David Jefferies state in brief as follows (omitting transcript references):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Ganim
...person with the title of a de facto officer; instead, there must be a continuing exercise of the functions of the office. Deal v. Johnson, 362 So.2d 214, 219 (Ala.1978); Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc., 560 P.2d 758, 764 n. 7 (Alaska 1977). Without deciding whether the trial court properly found......
-
Banner Welders, Inc. v. Knighton
...on an issue material to the claim or where there are no disputed questions of fact on which reasonable people could differ. Deal v. Johnson, 362 So.2d 214 (Ala.1978). In considering a motion for directed verdict, the court must apply Rule 50(e), ARCP, under which "a question must go to the ......
-
Sphinx Intern. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
...some ineligibility or failure to qualify as required by law. U.S. v. MPM Contractors, Inc., 763 F.Supp. 488 (D.Kan.1991); Deal v. Johnson, 362 So.2d 214 (Ala.1978). Plaintiffs contend that Taylor falls into that category, and since the insured v. insured exclusion only applies to duly elect......
-
Central Alabama Elec. Co-op. v. Tapley
...on an issue material to the claim or where there are no disputed questions of fact on which reasonable people could differ. Deal v. Johnson, 362 So.2d 214 (Ala.1978).... "In addition, the trial court must view the entire evidence, and all reasonable inferences which a jury might have drawn ......