Wolbrette v. New Orleans Drug Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 24740 |
| Citation | 149 La. 434,89 So. 406 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | WOLBRETTE v. NEW ORLEANS DRUG CO., Inc. In re NEW ORLEANS DRUG CO., Inc. |
Writs granted.
Denegre Leovy & Chaffe, of New Orleans, for applicant.
Theodore Roehl, of New Orleans, for respondent.
The defendant corporation has taken a suspensive appeal from an order appointing a receiver, and has perfected the appeal by giving bond; but, the receiver having taken charge of all of its property, it is without funds with which to pay for the transcript of appeal in order to file it in this court. It has applied in vain to the receiver to pay for this manuscript, and to the trial judge to compel him to do so and now applies to this court for a mandamus in the premises.
Moreover the learned trial judge has ruled that, notwithstanding the suspensive character of said appeal, the receiver may go on and operate the business as a going concern, and the corporation also now applies to this court for a writ of prohibition against this carrying on of the business.
As reasons for thus depriving the corporation of the money necessary for paying for the transcript of its appeal and the filing of it in this court, it is said that the appeal has been taken in reality, not by the corporation, but by the president and one member of the board of directors, who in the application for the receivership are the parties charged with the mismanagement of the affairs of the company.
The said two persons and the plaintiff in the receivership proceedings constituted the board of directors of the corporation; so that the said appeal is being prosecuted by authority of a majority of the board of directors and the president of the corporation; and the sole party opposing is one member of the board of directors, who is the plaintiff in the receivership proceedings.
Again it is said that, if said money is furnished and the judgment appealed from is affirmed, the corporation will have to proceed against the president individually for reimbursement, and that said president may perhaps be found not to have property sufficient to answer for said amount, $ 150, and thus the same might be lost to the corporation.
The answer is that the money will not be furnished to the president individually, but to the corporation; so that the president individually will not be liable for same.
Again it is said that the corporation is poor, and needs all its cash for carrying on its business.
The answer to that is that the most important and pressing business of the corporation just now is to protect itself against this appointment of a receiver, which takes its business out of its hands, and puts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Malley v. Continental Life Ins. Co.
... ... 1172, 26 S.W.2d 831; State v ... Schwartzman Service, Inc., 40 S.W.2d 479; Richards on ... The Law of Insurance (4 Ed.), sec. 17, ... Savannah & C. Ry. Co., 21 S.C. 162; Morton v. New ... Orleans & S. Ry. Co., 79 Ala. 590; Adams v. Kehlor ... Min. Co., 38 F. 281; ... any discussion of the facts. It cited only Wolbrette v ... New Orleans Drug Co. (La.), 89 So. 406, which did not ... ...
-
People ex rel. Schacht v. Main Ins. Co.
...and indeed the duty of all of its officers (Esarey v. Pierson (1923), 84 Ind.App. 109, 141 N.E. 87, and see Wolbrette v. New Orleans Drug Co. (1921), 149 La. 434, 89 So. 406), to take the necessary steps to protect its corporate existence and to repel an attack which it regards as The Direc......
-
Watson v. Johnson, 24458.
... ... People v. Commercial Alliance Life Insurance Co., ... 148 N.Y. 563, 42 N.E. 1044; Goodyear Tire & ... J. Eq. 108, 103 A ... 471; Wolbrette v. New Orleans Drug Co., 149 La. 434, ... 89 So. 406; ... ...
-
Sims v. Homeseekers Fire Ins. Co.
... ... Newcomb, 89 N.Y. 108; Wolbrette v. New Orleans Drug ... Co., 149 La. 434, 89 So. 406; Esarey v ... ...