Flakall Corp. v. Krause

70 N.W.2d 8, 269 Wis. 310, 1955 Wisc. LEXIS 370
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 8, 1955
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 70 N.W.2d 8 (Flakall Corp. v. Krause) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flakall Corp. v. Krause, 70 N.W.2d 8, 269 Wis. 310, 1955 Wisc. LEXIS 370 (Wis. 1955).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion of the respondent Flakall Corporation to dismiss the appeal of the appellants is hereby granted because of the contumacious contempt of appellants in defying the in junctional provisions of the judgment appealed from, without complying with the conditions for a stay imposed by the trial court. Authority for such dismissal is afforded by Arnold v. Nat. Union of Marine Cooks, etc. (1953), 42 Wash. (2d) 648, 257 Pac. (2d) 629, affirmed in (1954), 348 U. S. 37, 75 Sup. Ct. 92, 99 L. Ed. 46.

We consider the defense, that it is Flake Food Corporation, a Georgia corporation, whose acts have violated the in junc-tional provisions of the judgment below and not the appellants to be without merit. It appears that the two individual appellants own 34 of the issued 40 shares of capital stock of such corporation, that one of the remaining six shares of outstanding stock originally stood in the name of the defendant Frank C. Krause and apparently was assigned by him to a third person in order to qualify such person as a director, and that the other five shares are owned by Sarah Krause, wife of the appellant Alvin C. Krause. The inference is inescapable that the two appellants are in complete control of Flake Food Corporation, and no proof has been submitted to rebut such inference. We consider that the facts in the instant case closely parallel those in Terminal Barber Shops, Inc., v. Zoberg (2d Cir. 1928), 28 Fed. (2d) 807, where two majority stockholders were held accountable for the acts of the corporation which they controlled.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

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

Related

Pamperin v. Pamperin
331 N.W.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1983)
State v. Advance Marketing Consultants, Inc.
225 N.W.2d 887 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1975)
Sivyer Steel Casting Co. v. American Steel & Pump Corp.
146 N.W.2d 476 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)
Knutson v. Knutson
111 N.W.2d 905 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1961)
Pilgrim Food Products Co. v. Filler Products, Inc.
143 A.2d 47 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Schafer v. Schafer
87 N.W.2d 803 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1958)
Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Corp.
77 N.W.2d 733 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 N.W.2d 8, 269 Wis. 310, 1955 Wisc. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flakall-corp-v-krause-wis-1955.