Goodwin v. Whitener

138 S.E.2d 232, 262 N.C. 582, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 700
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 14, 1964
Docket451
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 232 (Goodwin v. Whitener) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goodwin v. Whitener, 138 S.E.2d 232, 262 N.C. 582, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 700 (N.C. 1964).

Opinion

Higgins, J.

The complaint is the foundation document in this civil action. Hence, it is before the Court as a part of the record proper, of which we take notice. Skinner v. Transformadora, 252 N.C. 320, 113 S.E. 2d 717, citing many cases. The complaint alleges that two directors of the corporation were guilty of such mismanagement of the corporate affairs as caused the company to become insolvent and unable to pay the plaintiff’s judgment. A claim of mismanagement exists in favor of the corporation. The duties which have been breached by this mismanagement are duties primarily to the corporation. Before a creditor or stockholder may sue those guilty of mismanagement, he must allege a demand on the corporation, or its receiver if insolvent, to bring the suit and a refusal to do so. Even then the corporation must be made a party defendant; and any recovery must be held for the benefit of the corporation. Coble v. Beall, 130 N.C. 533, 41 S.E. 794; McIver v. Hardware Co., 144 N.C. 478, 57 S.E. 169; Douglass v. Dawson, 190 N.C. 458, 130 S.E. 195; Corporation Commission v. Bank, 193 N.C. 113, 136 S.E. 362. “Where, however, an officer of a corporation so utilizes his authority as to benefit himself to the detriment of the corporation, a right of *584 action accrues to the corporation.” Fulton v. Talbert, 255 N.C. 183, 120 S.E. 2d 410.

Under the authority of the cases cited, we hold the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action. For the reasons assigned in Transformadora, supra, and the many cases therein cited, we remand the case to the Superior Court for the entry of judgment dismissing the action. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion of the questions discussed in the appellant’s brief.

Remanded.

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

Related

Gwaltney v. Gwaltney
2017 NCBC 12 (North Carolina Business Court, 2017)
In Re Bostic Construction, Inc.
435 B.R. 46 (M.D. North Carolina, 2010)
Silverman v. Miller (In Re Silverman)
155 B.R. 362 (E.D. North Carolina, 1993)
Alford v. Shaw
349 S.E.2d 41 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Speer v. Dighton Grain, Inc.
624 P.2d 952 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1981)
Gilbert v. Bagley
492 F. Supp. 714 (M.D. North Carolina, 1980)
Ford Motor Credit Company v. L. Dean Minges
473 F.2d 918 (Fourth Circuit, 1973)
Underwood v. Stafford
155 S.E.2d 211 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 S.E.2d 232, 262 N.C. 582, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-whitener-nc-1964.