Flanagan v. Glencoe Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Flanagan v. Glencoe Cotton Mills

108 S.E. 156, 116 S.C. 396, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 119

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 1, 1921

Docket10702

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 156 (Flanagan v. Glencoe Cotton Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flanagan v. Glencoe Cotton Mills, 108 S.E. 156, 116 S.C. 396, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 119 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This evidence tends to show that the .plaintiff was the bookkeeper of the defendant mill. That the mill bought in the stock of one of its deceased stockholders at 50 cents on the dollar and resold it at par to some of the people who were in with the management of the mill. The defendant purchased 25 shares and gave his obligation to the mill for the purchase money. He was then made a director. The mill had not been making money, but it became prosperous and gave by way of bonus to its directors about $40,000. This gift was ordered by the directors. Subsequently a stockholders’ meeting ,was had and the action of the' directors was approved. These directors owned a large majority of the stock. The plaintiff was secretary of the board, but he did not send out any notices of a stockholders’ meeting. We are left only to presume 'that the /stockholders were duly notified. Plaintiff demanded that his obligation to the corporation be marked paid, and asked for judgment for the balance. Some, if not all, of the directors, who were voted a bonus are said to have returned it; but there is no sufficient proof of it, or of any circumstances that rendered the payment of a bond necessary or proper, or an indorsement of it by the corporation.

It would be manifestly unfair, on this partial and incompetent statement of facts, to make a final judgment. As the record now stands, it appears that the directors voted a bonus to each other, and then resolved themselves into a stockholders’ meeting and approved the action. A bonus equal to 40 per cent, of the capital stock was given to the directors, with no explanation, except that they had the money. No authority sustains that. The plaintiff paid out a part of it as Federal taxes; so there should be *400 a full investigation in order that complete justice may be done.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, that the case be sent back to the Court of Common Pleas for a full showing as to the f-acts of the case, and an accounting by .all who took part in the $40,000 bonus, and that all the directors be made parties hereto.

Mr. Chieé Justice Gary and Mr!. Justice Watts concur.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This evidence tends to show that the .plaintiff was the bookkeeper of the defendant mill. That the mill bought in the stock of one of its deceased stockholders at 50 cents on the dollar and resold it at par to some of the people who were in with the management of the mill. The defendant purchased 25 shares and gave his obligation to the mill for the purchase money. He was then made a director. The mill had not been making money, but it became prosperous and gave by way of bonus to its directors about $40,000. This gift was ordered by the directors. Subsequently a stockholders’ meeting ,was had and the action of the' directors was approved. These directors owned a large majority of the stock. The plaintiff was secretary of the board, but he did not send out any notices of a stockholders’ meeting. We are left only to presume 'that the /stockholders were duly notified. Plaintiff demanded that his obligation to the corporation be marked paid, and asked for judgment for the balance. Some, if not all, of the directors, who were voted a bonus are said to have returned it; but there is no sufficient proof of it, or of any circumstances that rendered the payment of a bond necessary or proper, or an indorsement of it by the corporation.

It would be manifestly unfair, on this partial and incompetent statement of facts, to make a final judgment. As the record now stands, it appears that the directors voted a bonus to each other, and then resolved themselves into a stockholders’ meeting and approved the action. A bonus equal to 40 per cent, of the capital stock was given to the directors, with no explanation, except that they had the money. No authority sustains that. The plaintiff paid out a part of it as Federal taxes; so there should be *400 a full investigation in order that complete justice may be done.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, that the case be sent back to the Court of Common Pleas for a full showing as to the f-acts of the case, and an accounting by .all who took part in the $40,000 bonus, and that all the directors be made parties hereto.

Mr. Chieé Justice Gary and Mr!. Justice Watts concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 156, 116 S.C. 396, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanagan-v-glencoe-cotton-mills-sc-1921.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack