Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1903

Klugh v. Coronaca Milling Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided April 20, 1903 · Jones, McCullough

44 S.E. 566; 66 S.C. 100; 1903 S.C. LEXIS 74 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Sheppards Grier and Caldwell Park , for appellants, cite: Findings of Circuit Judge on hearing for appointment of receiver is binding on successor: 14 S.C. 324 . Courts are careful not to interfere in workings of corporations: 4 Ency., 194; 23 St., 1036; 104 U.S. 460 . Facts necessary to be pleaded: 2 Cook on Corp., sec. 644, 646, 740; 53 S.C. 529 ; 39 S.C. 49 ; 48 S.C. 80 . Mr. Ellis G. Graydon , contra, cites: Complaint states a good and sufficient cause of action: 104 U.S. 462 ; 39 S.C. 44 ; 48 S.C. 80 ; 53 S.C. 519 ; 60 S.C. 437 ; 8 S.E., 576 ; 2 Cook on Corp., sec. 741, and note 3, p. 1617, and note 1, p. 1619; 20 Ency. P. P., 781, 786, 788, 767, 783, and note 3; 2 Cook on Corp., secs. 644, 701, 703, 734.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The only question in this appeal is whether the Circuit Court erred in overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitúte a cause of action. The decree of the Circuit Court (which is officially reported herewith, together with the exceptions thereto,) is quite satisfactory, and is affirmed upon the authorities and for the reasons therein stated. The complaint states a case showing gross negligence and mismanagement of the corporate property resulting in loss to the stockholders, and that an effort for redress within the corporation would be useless. Stahn v. Catawba Mills, 53 S. C., 528, 31 S. E., 498; Matthews v. Bank, 60 S. C., 183, 38 S. E., 430.

*107 The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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