People ex rel. Port Huron & Gratiot Railway Co. v. Judge of St. Clair Circuit
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Grand Rapids Electrotype Co. v. Powers-Tyson Corp. (Mich. 1929)
- Detroit & Birmingham Plank-Road Co. v. Frazer (Mich. 1893)
- City of Huron v. Campbell (S.D. 1892)
- Lendzion v. Senstock (Mich. 1942)
- Sanford v. Newell (Mich. 1918)
- In re Independent Machine & Tool Corp. (2d Cir. 1918)
- Harbor Springs Lumber Co. v. Emmet Circuit Judge (Mich. 1910)
- Goldman v. Manistee Circuit Judge (Mich. 1908)
- People v. Hasbrouck (New York Supreme Court 1907)
- Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. Ritz (W. Va. 1906)
- State ex rel. Ellingsworth v. Carlson (Neb. 1904)
- Bowman v. Hazen (Kan. 1904)
- Slover v. Coal Creek Coal Co. (Tenn. 1904)
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Graves (Neb. 1902)
- Johnson Electric-Service Co. v. Detroit Chamber of Commerce (Mich. 1900)
- Hall v. Wayne Circuit Judge (Mich. 1897)
- St. Louis, Kennett & Southern Railroad v. Wear (Mo. 1896)
- State ex rel. Klotz v. Ross (Mo. 1893)
- City of Detroit v. Hosmer (Mich. 1890)
- Pressley v. Lamb (Ind. 1886)
- Tawas & Bay County Railroad v. Circuit Judge (Mich. 1880)
- McCombs v. Merryhew (Mich. 1879)
- Arnold v. Bright (Mich. 1879)
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
The directors or other board of management of a corporation having general authority to manage its concerns, are vested by law with the only discretionary power that can exist in any one to carry on the corporate business; and such management cannot be assumed by a court of chancery, or vested in a receiver; neither can it be taken from the board, except under proceedings instituted to wind up the corporation under the statutes. — Comp. L., 1871, ch. 206 and 207.
The appointment, ex parte, of a receiver to manage the corporate business, and the granting of an injunction in like manner on an interlocutory ex parte application, whereby the control of the business is taken from the directors, are more than irregular, and are absolutely void, as entirely beyond the power of the court; and are such an abuse as may be required to be corrected by mandamus.
The nullity of such attempts to divest rights by interlocutory and ex parte orders was somewhat considered in People v. Simonson, 10 Mich., 335, and Salling v. Johnson, 25 Mich., 489. — See also Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich., 201.
Writ granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.