Skip to main content
· 7/27/1886

Bacon v. Irvine

Citations

  • 70 Cal. 221
  • 11 P. 646
  • 1886 Cal. LEXIS 770

Syllabus

<p>Corporation—Action by Stockholders—Request on Directors to Brins — Must be Made in Good Faith. —The action was brought by certain stockholders of a corporation against the company, its president, directors, and other officers, for the purpose of procuring the appointment of a receiver of the corporate property; to compel each and all of the defendants to account to the company; that an assessment levied upon its capital stock be rescinded; and that the sale of the stock in payment of the assessment be enjoined. The complaint alleged that all of the'individual defendants had conspired together and embezzled a large amount of the corporate funds- It further alleged that the plaintiffs had requested the directors of the corporation to bring the action in the name of the company, but that they had refused. On the trial, no evidence connecting the directors with any fraudulent act or embezzlement of the corporate property was introduced, and it appeared that the sole object of the action was to compel the defendants, other than the directors, to account to the company for certain corporate property alleged-to have been fraudulently appropriated by them. Held, that the action could not be maintained by the stockholders, for the reason that the request made by them on the directors to bring the action was simulated, and did not express the real nature of the action that they desired to have brought.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • enforcing an agreement to jointly purchase a lottery ticket and to share the proceeds, as not violative of either Georgia’s statute prohibiting gambling contracts or public policy, because the lottery was legal in Kentucky where the ticket was purchased
  • enforcing an agreement to jointly purchase a lottery ticket and to share the proceeds, as not violative of either Georgia's statute prohibiting gambling contracts or public policy, because the lottery was legal in Kentucky where the ticket was purchased
  • enforcing an agreement to jointly purchase a lottery ticket and to share the proceeds, as not violative of either Georgia’s statute prohibiting gambling contracts or public policy, because the lottery was legal in Kentucky where the ticket was purchased
  • no gambling contract existed unless parties contracted to gamble against one another and one party lost

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Foote

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.