Caudell v. Athens Savings Bank

79 S.E. 776, 140 Ga. 713, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 231
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 14, 1913·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. Ordinarily the minutes of a corporation show the formal actions of its directors and stockholders; and before parol evidence thereof can be introduced, they should be produced or accounted for. Parol evidence, however, is admissible to prove the unrecorded acts and transactions of corporations, or of their officers or directors. Bank of Garfield v. Clark, 138 Ga. 798 (7), 799 (76 S. E. 95) ; Fouché v. Bank, 110 Ga. 827 (6), 850 (36 S. E. 256); Ten Eyck v. Pontiac etc. R. Co., 74 Mich. 226 (41 N. W. 905, 3 L. R. A. 378, 16 Am. St. R. 633); 2 Thomp. Corp. (2d ed.) §§ 1842, 1847. See also Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 (11 Sup. Ct. 530, 35 L. ed. 227).

2. It was not error to refuse to grant an interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caudell v. Athens Savings Bank, 79 S.E. 776, 140 Ga. 713, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 231 (Ga. 1913).

79 S.E. 776 (Caudell v. Athens Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Southern Pan & Shoring Co.
369 S.E.2d 239 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1988)
South Georgia Trust Co. v. Crandall
170 S.E. 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Abercrombie v. Georgia Distributing Co.
148 S.E. 296 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Kaylor v. Carrollton Bank
141 S.E. 422 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Brown v. Rutledge & Summerour
92 S.E. 774 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)