Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1912

Brock v. Automobile Livery & Sales Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Decided February 26, 1912 · Monroe

130 La. 414; 58 So. 25; 1912 La. LEXIS 861

Cases that cite this one

27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. LAUDERDALE BOAT YARD, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
Lee v. Williams (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Walton County v. Stop Beach Renourishment (Fla. 2008)
Odom v. Deltona Corp. (Fla. 1977)
Lopez v. Smith (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)
United States v. Turner (5th Cir. 1949)
State ex rel. Buford v. City of Tampa (Fla. 1924)
Brickell v. Trammel (Fla. 1919)
Brock v. Automobile Livery & Sales Co. (La. 1915)
Trepanier v. County of Volusia (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
Board of Trustees v. FLORIDA PUC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
BD. OF TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMP. TR. FUND v. Sand Key Assoc. (Fla. 1987)
City of Plantation v. Roberts (Fla. 1976)
Maddox v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund (Sarasota County Circuit Court 1970)
South Venice Corporation v. Caspersen (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
Lopez v. Smith (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
Duval v. Thomas (Fla. 1959)
Osceola County v. Triple E Development Company (Fla. 1956)
Baker v. State (Fla. 1956)
State ex rel. Marsh v. Simberg (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court 1953)
Caples v. Taliaferro (Fla. 1940)
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Rowe (Fla. 1933)
Martin v. Busch (Fla. 1927)
Apalachicola Land & Development Co. v. McRae (Fla. 1923)
City of Tarpon Springs v. Smith (Fla. 1921)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MONROE, J.

This is a suit for the appointment of a receiver and an injunction. Plaintiff owns one half of the stock of the defendant corporation and the two defendants, in injunction, who bear the name of Stock, own the other half, the three constituting the board of directors, and plain*415tiff being president of the corporation, Charles I-I. Stock vice president, and W. Fred. Stock secretary-treasurer. In a suit previously instituted, plaintiff, upon various grounds, asked that a receiver be appointed, and the defendants named enjoined from doing certain things, and, from a judgment dismissing his application for the appointment of the receiver, but, maintaining the preliminary injunction which was issued, he appealed to this court, where, the case having been argued with the instant case, the judgment appealed from has been reversed, in so far as the right to the appointment of a receiver was denied, and affirmed, in so far as the injunction was maintained. Brock v. Automobile Livery & Sales Co. et al., ante, 404, 58 South. 21, No. 19,101, this day decided.

Shortly after taking the appeal referred to, plaintiff instituted this suit, in which he alleges and on the trial proved that defendants, and particularly Mr. Fred. Stock, have used, and have withheld, funds of the corporation in disregard of the provisions of the charter and of the rules established by the board of directors of which they are members and in violation of the pending injunction. And on the case presented there was judgment for plaintiff, as prayed for, from which defendants have appealed. Having found from the facts disclosed in the transcript No. 19,101 that the defendants Stock have been usurping the powers of the corporation, denying to plaintiff the enjoyment of his rights as stockholder, director and president, and thereby jeopardizing his interest and mismanaging the affairs of the corporation, we need only say that .the transcript now before us, which shows the unauthorized use and withholding of corporate funds, confirms the conclusion thus reached.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed at the costs of the defendants W. Fred. Stock and Charles H. Stock.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.