Simpson

Simpson v. Nielson

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 300·77 Cal. App. 297·246 P. 342
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1926Docket No. 5550.California821 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

The plaintiffs, who constitute the majority in number and in ownership of stock of the stockholders of the Diamond Laundry Company, a corporation, commenced this action under the provisions of section 315 of the Civil Code, to determine the validity of an election of directors of the corporation held on March 5, 1924. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that three of their number were elected directors at said meeting, but that defendant Collopy, claiming to act under a written proxy from one of the plaintiffs, voted his stock at said meeting, and that three of the defendants thereby claimed to have been elected directors; that these three defendants had taken possession of all the property of the corporation to the injury of the plaintiffs. The complaint closed with a prayer that the defendants be restrained from acting as officers of the corporation and from possessing its books and properties, and that the election of the three plaintiffs—Simpson, Neibel, and Mehegan—be declared valid, that the voting agreement, or proxy, be declared void, and for other equitable relief.

The trial court found all the allegations of the first cause of ‘action to be true and issued its…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.