Triplett v. Grundy Elec. Co-op., Inc.
Decision Date | 05 April 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 24135,24135 |
Citation | 389 S.W.2d 401 |
Parties | William TRIPLETT and Thomas Loughead, Appellants, v. GRUNDY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., a corporation, Paul Hiatt, Cliff Stanton, Dale Porter, Albert Reeves, Clem Cleeton, Roger Williams, Charles Mack, and Wayne Rhoades, as members or former members of the Board of Directors of Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc., a corporation, Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
L. E. Atherton, Milan, for appellants.
Phil Hauck, Pickett, Andereck & Hauck, Trenton, for respondents.
Appellants William Triplett and Thomas Loughead, on August 4, 1962, brought a declaratory judgment action against Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc., and certain members and former members of its Board of Directors asking in Count I that the court determine that certain payments made to the directors are illegal under Section 394.140 RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S., 1 and the By-Laws of the Cooperative, and that the Cooperative is without power to continue making such payments. In the second count appellants sought an accounting of these payments to the end that any sums received by respondents be restored.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, that the matter was moot and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As a result of a hearing on that motion the trial court ruled the controversy had become moot, and entered judgment for defendants. This appeal followed.
The pertinent facts as developed by the pleadings and at the hearing on the motion to dismiss are undisputed. Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc., of Trenton, Missouri, is a rural electric cooperative, deriving its existence from and being subject to the statutory provisions known as 'The Rural Electric Co-operative Law', chapter 394, RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. Appellants are two of the many hundred members of the cooperative.
According to the petition for declaratory judgment,
Four days after appellants filed their present suit, and in direct response to it, at a regular meeting of respondent Cooperative with a quorum present, the present suit was explained to those attending. We quote from the minutes of that meeting:
'At this point, Mr. Glen Daily, a member of the Cooperative who was present at the meeting, obtained the floor and made the following motion:
* * *
* * *
'The inspectors of election * * * certified that proposition number three, the resolution ratifying and authorizing compensation to Directors and employees of the Cooperative for attendance of meetings conducted by the Rural Electrification Administration, the State, Regional and National Associations with which the Cooperative is associated for the purpose of representing the Cooperative, as heretofore or hereinafter approved by the Board of Directors, was approved and adopted by a majority vote of the members of the Cooperative; the vote being 674 for the resolution and 56 opposed to the resolution.' * * *
'The President further declared that the resolution for compensation of Directors was accepted by a majority of the members of the Cooperative voting at this meeting.'
At the August 2, 1963 Annual Meeting the minutes of the 1962 Meeting were read in full and were approved by the Membership of the Cooperative.
The trial judge in entering judgment for defendants by memorandum stated, only legitimate interest in the affair, in other words, was to protect the Co-op's treasury from the drain of unauthorized disbursements. The suit was proper for that purpose. But it did not afford the only means by which that result could be achieved. The members of the Co-op could protect themselves against unauthorized disbursements, and one method of doing so was to supply the necessary authority. That was the method the statute contemplated. No payment complained of here was either violative of public policy or inherently evil; it was simply 'defective from a failure to observe in its execution a requirement of law enacted for the benefit or protection of a certain class,' viz., the members themselves, and 'the parties for whose benefit the requirement was enacted may ratify it.' 19 C.J.S., Corporations, Section 968, p. 424. This they did. Whatever defect may have stemmed from the failure to authorize the outlays in advance was removed by the subsequent approval of them--by the formal ratification of them.
'In effect, therefore--indeed, in fact--there has been what amounts to a full compliance with plaintiffs' demands, or at any rate a complete satisfaction of any proper interest they may have had in the matter, and hence 'no justiciable controversy remains in the case.''
Appellants state the trial court erred in its ruling and that the issues on appeal are (1) in view of Section 394.140 RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S., and the By-Laws of the Cooperative, does the Board of Directors of the Cooperative have power to compensate the directors for attending meetings other than meetings of the Board held in Trenton, Mo.; and (2) if the Board has such power could the By-Laws be amended to ratify past expenditures for attending such meetings as well as future ones. We address ourselves to these two contentions of appellants.
Section 394.080 sets forth the broad powers of a rural electric cooperative whose function may be generalized as the providing for and the supplying of electric energy and promoting and extending the use thereof in rural areas. Subsections 12, 13, and 14 thereof provide the cooperative is authorized: '(12) To conduct its business and exercise any or all of its powers within or without this state; '(13) To adopt, amend and repeal by-laws; and '(14) To do and perform any and all other acts and things, and to have and exercise any and all other powers which may be necessary, convenient or appropriate to accomplish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shapiro v. Columbia Union Nat. Bank and Trust Co.
...public importance and involves public rights or interests under conditions which may readily recur. Triplett v. Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc., 389 S.W.2d 401, 408 (Mo.App.1965); Lawyers' Association of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 294 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Mo.App.1956); Western Auto Suppl......
-
Wolgin v. Simon
...by a majority of the shareholders, see Neidert v. Neidert, 637 S.W.2d 296, 301 (Mo.App.1982), quoting Triplett v. Grundy Elec. Coop., 389 S.W.2d 401, 407 (Mo.App.1965); Saigh, 396 S.W.2d at 17, thus precluding the necessity of suit. See Caldwell v. Eubanks, 326 Mo. 185, 30 S.W.2d 976, 978 (......
-
Neidert v. Neidert
...9, 22 (Mo.App.1965), cited with approval in Broski v. Jones, 614 S.W.2d 300, 304 (Mo.App.1981). See also Triplett v. Grundy Elec. Cooperative, Inc., 389 S.W.2d 401, 407 (Mo.App.1965). In Triplett it is pointed out that the stockholders "may ratify informal or irregular action of the board o......
-
C--- ---F--- ---B---, In re
...(Mo. banc 1971); Morley v. Ryan, 461 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.1970); Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo.App.1952); Triplett v. Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc., 389 S.W.2d 401 (Mo.App.1965). However, the application of the exception set forth in those cases is discretionary with the court. 5 Am.Jur.......