Hinckley v. Swaner

368 P.2d 709, 13 Utah 2d 93, 3 A.L.R. 3d 620, 1962 Utah LEXIS 153
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 9, 1962
Docket9560
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 368 P.2d 709 (Hinckley v. Swaner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hinckley v. Swaner, 368 P.2d 709, 13 Utah 2d 93, 3 A.L.R. 3d 620, 1962 Utah LEXIS 153 (Utah 1962).

Opinions

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a declaratory judgment stating that a majority vote of shareholders at a properly called meeting for the purpose, was sufficient to add a fifth director to a previous four-man directorship. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

The corporation’s articles provide that “There shall be enacted by ballot by the stockholders * * * A Board of Directors consisting of not less than four nor more than six, and until otherwise determined by the stockholders * * * shall consist of four members.”

The articles also provide that an amendment thereto shall be by two-thirds vote of the stockholders. Defendants urge that in order to have five directors instead of four, requires an amendment to the articles by a two-thirds majority vote.

Ordinarily the election of directors is shareholder-privileged.1 The language quoted above makes it appear that so long as they keep within the four-six orbit, no amendment to the articles is necessary. Had the stockholders tried to elect only three, or more than six, or had the agenda called for a five-man board with the four to six escalator provision to be eliminated, defendants’ contention would have merit. Otherwise not, and we so hold.

To argue that the phrase “and until otherwise determined by the stockholders * * * shall consist of four members” transmutes such usual prerogative of shareholders to elect directors by majority vote into a mandate that an amendment to the charter be required, seems unreasonable, unrealistic, offensive to the principle that language is to be construed according to its usual and ordinary meaning, and not consonant with the elementary concept that a primary function of shareholders is to elect directors through the democratic process respecting a simple majority.2

[95]*95WADE, C. J., and McDONOUGH and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Harding v. Heritage Health Products Co.
98 P.3d 945 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2004)
Scott County Tobacco Warehouses, Inc. v. Harris
201 S.E.2d 780 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1974)
Hinckley v. Swaner
368 P.2d 709 (Utah Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
368 P.2d 709, 13 Utah 2d 93, 3 A.L.R. 3d 620, 1962 Utah LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinckley-v-swaner-utah-1962.