Klugh v. Coronaca Milling Co.

44 S.E. 566, 66 S.C. 100, 1903 S.C. LEXIS 74
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 20, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 S.E. 566 (Klugh v. Coronaca Milling Co.) 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
Klugh v. Coronaca Milling Co., 44 S.E. 566, 66 S.C. 100, 1903 S.C. LEXIS 74 (S.C. 1903).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The only question in this appeal is whether the Circuit Court erred in overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitúte a cause of action. The decree of the Circuit Court (which is officially reported herewith, together with the exceptions thereto,) is quite satisfactory, and is affirmed upon the authorities and for the reasons therein stated. The complaint states a case showing gross negligence and mismanagement of the corporate property resulting in loss to the stockholders, and that an effort for redress within the corporation would be useless. Stahn v. Catawba Mills, 53 S. C., 528, 31 S. E., 498; Matthews v. Bank, 60 S. C., 183, 38 S. E., 430.

*107 The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Chisolm v. Carolina Agency Co.
70 S.E. 1035 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1911)
Sigwald v. City Bank
64 S.E. 398 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 S.E. 566, 66 S.C. 100, 1903 S.C. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klugh-v-coronaca-milling-co-sc-1903.