Vigeant v. Jeanne D'Arc Credit Union
| Decision Date | 29 May 1930 |
| Citation | 271 Mass. 479,171 N.E. 440 |
| Parties | VIGEANT v. JEANNE D'ARC CREDIT UNION. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick B. Greenhalge, Judge.
Action by Napoleon J. Vigeant against the Jeanne D'Arc Credit Union. Findings for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
A. S. Howard, of Lowell, for plaintiff.
H. V. Charbonneau and J. H. Guillet, both of Lowell, for defendant.
The plaintiff brought his action to recover for services rendered and expenses incurred in suits brought by him for the benefit of the credit union. The judge in the superior court, who tried the case without jury, found for the plaintiff. The defendant contends that there was error in disregarding its defence of ultra vires. It appeared that certain real estate in Lowell had been purchased in the name of Paul Vigeant, then the treasurer of the credit union, with the money of the union, with the intention of using part as a place of business for the union and disposing of the rest for the benefit of the union. All parties conceded that the union then had no power to purchase or deal in real estate and that the original transaction was ultra vires. Later, by statute, power was granted the union to invest not more than $15,000 in the purchase of a suitable site and the erection or preparation of a suitable building for the convenient transaction of its business. The purchase had involved more than $15,000. In disposing of the portions not intended to be retained certain agreements were entered into between Paul Vigeant and the purchasers. The litigation in which the plaintiff rendered the service and incurred the expense sought to be recovered arose out of these agreements. The plaintiff was fully informed in regard to the circumstances. No formal votes authorizing his employment and the institution of legal proceedings by him were shown in evidence, but there was evidence of conversations with officers of the credit union and of knowledge and acquiescence by it from which the judge was justified in finding that he was employed and was authorized to act as he did. A corporation may be bound by evidence other than formal record. Knight v. Whitmore Manuf. Co., 248 Mass. 531, 143 N. E. 495.
There can be no doubt that the credit union was the owner of the real estate purchased, although the title stood in the name of Paul Vigeant. The only person entitled to question the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friend Lumber Co. v. Armstrong Bldg. Finish Co.
...in the transaction and were competent. North Anson Lumber Co. v. Smith, 209 Mass. 333, 337, 338, 95 N. E. 838;Vigeant v. Jeanne D'Arc Credit Union (Mass.) 171 N. E. 440. Testimony of an officer of the Friend Company was admitted to the effect that having called the Armstrong Company on the ......
-
Hurley v. Ornsteen
...Co. of Lowell, Inc., 306 Mass. 531, 532, 533, 28 N.E.2d 1005, 130 A.L.R. 890;Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59, 64;Vigeant v. Jeanne D'Arc Credit Union, 271 Mass. 479, 171 N.E. 440, but this does not mean that a majority may bind the corporation by an act required to be performed by the directo......
-
Jubinville v. Jubinville
...time enough to consider the validity of any license, if one is granted, when that question is properly raised. Vigeant v. Jeanne D'Arc Credit Union, 271 Mass. 479, 171 N.E. 440;Holliston v. Holliston Water Co., 306 Mass. 17, 27 N.E.2d 194. Apparently the license issued to the defendants and......
-
Planning Bd. of Springfield v. Board of Appeals of Springfield
...establishing his office. See City of Medford v. Corbett, 302 Mass. 573, 575, 20 N.E.2d 402. See also Vigeant v. Jeanne D'Are Credit Union, 271 Mass. 479, 480-481, 171 N.E. 440. Cf. Jones v. Harrar, 326 Mass. 488, 491, 95 N.E.2d 646. The trial judge did not err in failing to sustain the plea......