TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephany v. Liberty Out Glass Works

ALBERT C. STEPHANY v. LIBERTY OUT GLASS WORKS

Stephany v. Liberty Out Glass Works, 69 A. 967 (N.J. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1908
Judges
Voorhees
Citations
69 A. 96776 N.J.L. 44947 Vroom 4491908 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 133
Headnotes
The by-laws of a corporation provided that an officer “shall be subject to removal by resolution of the board of directors, provided two-thirds of the whole board shall vote in favor thereof.” The board consisted of seven members. Held, that an affirmative vote of four for such removal, one member refusing to vote, was ineffective.
Summary
On certiorari. Eor the prosecutor, Ulysses G. Styron. Eor the defendant, Charles A. Baalce.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Voorhees

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Voorhees, J.

This is a writ of certiorari directed to the defendant company to review the legality of a resolution of its *450 board of directors removing the prosecutor from the office of secretary. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey. Its board of directors consists of seven members, of whom the prosecutor is one. One of the reasons assigned by the prosecutor for the setting aside of the resolution is that the resolution did not receive an affirmative two-thirds vote of the whole hoard of directors.

• The by-laws of the company, provide for the annual appointment of a secretary, to hold office during the pleasure of the board, but who shall not be appointed for a longer term than one year, and, further, that he “shall be subject to removal by resolution of the board at any time for cause, provided ■two-thirds of the whole board shall vote in favor thereof.” At the meeting in question six members were present, including the prosecutor, who refrained from voting. Of the remaining members present four voted for the removal and one refused to vote. As the by-laws required that two-thirds of the whole board should vote in favor of the removal, five affirmative votes at least were necessary to legalize the action. The resolution did not receive that number of votes in its favor. The question does not arise as to the effect of the refusal of one of the members to vote (Mowrey v. Indianapolis and Cincinnati Railway Co., 4 Biss. 78 , since the provision is that two-thirds of the whole board shall vote in favor of the action. This renders it unnecessary to examine the other reasons assigned.

The action of the board of directors in removing the secretary should be set aside.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Overman v. Manly Drive Co.71 A. 1125 (N.J. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Overman v. Manly Drive Co.71 A. 1125 (N.J. 1909)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Mowrey v. Indianapolis & C. R., 17 F. Cas. 930 (1866) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list