Warner v. Frahm

Idaho Supreme Court

Warner v. Frahm

193 P. 1015, 33 Idaho 319, 1920 Ida. LEXIS 54

DecidedNovember 30, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 193 P. 1015 (Warner v. Frahm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warner v. Frahm, 193 P. 1015, 33 Idaho 319, 1920 Ida. LEXIS 54 (Idaho 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MORGAN, C. J.

This is a companion case to Crom et al. v. Frahm, ante, p. 314, 193 Pac. 1013. It was commenced pursuant to C, S., sec. 4718, by stockholders of Twin Falls [320]*320Canal Company, who were absent from the stockholder’s meeting referred to in the Crom case. That section provides: “At all elections or votes had for any purpose, there must be a majority of the subscribed capital stock, or of the members when there is no capital stock, represented either in person, or by proxy, in writing.....Any vote-or election had otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this title, is voidable at the instance of absent stockholders or members, and may be set aside by petition to the district court.....”

The proceeding resulted in a judgment to the effect that the meeting of stockholders, and the alterations of, additions and amendments to, the articles of incorporation and by-laws attempted to be made thereat, were void. This appeal is from the judgment.

The principles of law discussed in the Crom case are involved in, and decisive of, this one. On authority of that case this judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents.

Rice and Budge, JJ., concur.

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

MORGAN, C. J.

This is a companion case to Crom et al. v. Frahm, ante, p. 314, 193 Pac. 1013. It was commenced pursuant to C, S., sec. 4718, by stockholders of Twin Falls [320]*320Canal Company, who were absent from the stockholder’s meeting referred to in the Crom case. That section provides: “At all elections or votes had for any purpose, there must be a majority of the subscribed capital stock, or of the members when there is no capital stock, represented either in person, or by proxy, in writing.....Any vote-or election had otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this title, is voidable at the instance of absent stockholders or members, and may be set aside by petition to the district court.....”

The proceeding resulted in a judgment to the effect that the meeting of stockholders, and the alterations of, additions and amendments to, the articles of incorporation and by-laws attempted to be made thereat, were void. This appeal is from the judgment.

The principles of law discussed in the Crom case are involved in, and decisive of, this one. On authority of that case this judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents.

Rice and Budge, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 P. 1015, 33 Idaho 319, 1920 Ida. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-v-frahm-idaho-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack