Passmore v. Allentown & Reading Traction Co.
Passmore v. Allentown & Reading Traction Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This was a bill brought by an individual stockholder to redress injuries of a corporation (the Kutztown & Fleetwood Street Railway Company), in its right to have faithful performance of a contract with another corporation (the Allentown & Reading Traction Company), as lessee of the first company’s property. It was incumbent on complainant, Passmore, to set forth facts necessary to give him standing to assert rights that are ordinarily enforced by the corporation. The lease was between the corporation, of which he was a member, and the traction company as lessee. If the lessee company, through its officers, by fraud or mismanagement, wronged the lessor and its members, it should be re
A letter was sent by Passmore’s counsel to each of the directors of the Kutztown & Fleetwood Company. He states in substance that a bill in equity was filed in the District Court of the United States by complainant as a stockholder of the Kutztown & Fleetwood Railway Company against the Allentown & Reading Traction
We are not persuaded that the article of agreement in question requires the dividends or interest on bonds to be paid direct to the stockholders without passing through the corporate management. The agreement was with the corporation and it was agreed to pay to it a dividend equal to the dividend on the Reading stock.
The decree is affirmed at the cost of appellants.
Reference
- Cited By
- 12 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Corporations — Stochholders—Right of stochholder to sue to redress company’s wrong — Fraud, mismanagement, etc., prejudicial to plaintiff — Notice to directors — Equity—Specific performance. 1. Where a stockholder institutes a suit in equity in his own name to enforce a right of the corporation of which he is a member, he must set forth facts necessary to give him standing to assert rights that are ordinarily enforced by the corporation. The board of directors has the power to sue, and on them rests the burden of whether they should engage in such litigation. 2. Before the stockholder may intervene he must use every effort to cause the directors to act. Statements should be presented to the directors, showing the wrong complained of, not necessarily in detail, but facts essential to sustain a complaint of wrongdoing. Mere general charges and blanket averments, without a statement of facts, will not be sufficient. Insolvency and fraud need not be averred, though they may be, but acts must appear which are prejudicial and harmful to the corporation’s rights. Sufficient responsible data should be given to enable them to determine the question with some hope of success. 3. A corporation should not be put to the hazard of expensive litigation to satisfy the imaginary grievance of disappointed stockholders ; therefore, there must be something of substance on which to base the charge of wrongdoing. If the officers, through misconduct or otherwise, fail to proceed, after receiving due and sufficient notice, and there is not time to remove them and elect other officers, the shareholder, upon showing his effort to induce the corporation to proceed, and that he left nothing undone which he might have done to prevail on the corporation to bring such action, may institute proceedings in equity for relief. 4. A bill is properly dismissed where there are no charges of wrongdoing, or injury, or acts, prejudicial to plaintiff or his comjnany, or of mismanagement, fraud, or carelessness. Street railways — Lease—Rental—Dividends—Payment by lessee company through lessor company to latter’s stochholders. 5. Stockholders do not have standing to bring such action merely because the lease directs payment of dividends. Such payments pass through the corporate management and not directly to the stockholder.