In re the Election of Directors of Boulevard Theatre & Realty Co.
In the Matter of the Election of Directors of Boulevard Theatre and Realty Company, Respondent. Oscar L. Graf, Appellant; Alexander H. Pincus, Respondent
In re the Election of Directors of Boulevard Theatre & Realty Co., 132 N.E. 910 (N.Y. 1921)
Headnotes
Corporations — provision in certificate of incorporation that directors shall not be changed except by unanimous consent of stockholders violative of section 25 of Stock Corporation Law.
Summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 4, 1921, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion to set aside an election of directors, under section 32 of the General Corporation Law, and denied said motion. The certificate of incorporation provided: “ The number of directors of said corporation shall be three and the said directors and the number ■ thereof shall not be changed except by the unanimous consent of all the stockholders of said corporation.” It was alleged that at the election it was attempted to change the directors without the unanimous consent of the stockholders. • The Appellate Division held the provision in the certificate of incorporation that a director can only be elected upon the unanimous consent of all of the stockholders is violative of section 25 of the Stock Corporation Law, which declares that “ directors of every stock corporation shall be chosen at the time and place fixed by the by-laws of the corporation by a plurality of the votes at such election.”
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed,' with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.