Wason v. Buzzell
| Decision Date | 20 May 1902 |
| Citation | 181 Mass. 338,63 N.E. 909 |
| Parties | WASON et al. v. BUZZELL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Fred
L. Norton, for petitioners.
W. N. Buffum and F. S. Elliot, for respondents.
The petitioners allege that they are two of five directors of a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Maine, having an office in Portland, in that state, authorized to do business in this commonwealth, and having its usual place of business here in Boston, and they bring this petition against the corporation, the three remaining directors, and two other persons for a writ of mandamus commanding the responding directors to recognize and act with the petitioners as directors, and commanding the other respondents to refrain from attempting to act as directors. All the individual petitioners and respondents are residents of this commonwealth. A demurrer to the bill upon several grounds, one of which was that the subject-matter of the controversy concerns the internal management of the affairs of a foreign corporation, was sustained by a single justice of this court, and the bill ordered to be dismissed; and the case is before us upon a report made by him, such disposition thereof to be made as law and justice may require.
It is plain that th statement contained in the demurrer is correct. The only thing in controversy is whether the plaintiffs have been elected directors in accordance with the law of the home of the corporation,--a question relating simply to the official relations existing between them and the corporation. This is a question relating solely to the management of the internal affairs of the corporation. Although there is some difference in the various states as to whether jurisdiction shall be taken in such a case (see Mining Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 151, 20 A. 1039, and State v. Cronan, 23 Nev. 437, 49 P. 41), we are satisfied that the better rule is that such questions should be settled by the courts of the state in which the corporation is domiciled, and we must decline to take jurisdiction. See Kimball v. Railway Co., 157 Mass. 7, 31 N.E. 697, 34 Am. St. Rep. 250, and cases cited.
Petition dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co of New York
...Co., 256 N.Y. 102, 175 N.E. 529, or interfere with the election of officers or the meetings of shareholders or directors, Wason v. Buzzell, 181 Mass. 338, 63 N.E. 909; State ex rel. Lake Shore Tel. & T. Co. v. De Groat, 109 Minn. 168, 123 N.W. 417, 134 Am.St.Rep. 764; see Travis v. Knox Ter......
-
Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England
...inquiry into the internal concerns of a foreign corporation, notwithstanding service of process upon the defendants. In Wason v. Buzzell, 181 Mass. 338, 63 N. E. 909, the court declined to take jurisdiction of a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by petitioners who alleged that they we......
-
Lydia E. Pinkham Med. Co. v. Gove
...Co., 142 Mass. 349, 7 N.E. 773;Kimball v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway, 157 Mass. 7, 31 N.E. 697,34 Am.St.Rep. 250;Wason v. Buzzell, 181 Mass. 338, 63 N.E. 909 and Wright v. Post, 268 Mass. 126, 167 N.E. 278, cited by the defendants. 2. What has just been said with reference to the dem......
-
Babcock v. Farwell
...rights dependent upon such management. New Haven Horse Shoe Nail Co. v. Linden Springs Co., 142 Mass. 353, 7 N. E. 773;Wason v. Buzzell, 181 Mass. 338, 63 N. E. 909;Kimball v. St. Louis & Santa Fé Railway Co., 157 Mass. 7, 31 N. E. 697,34 Am. St. Rep. 250;Madden v. Penn Electric Light Co., ......