Skip to main content
· 4/23/1888

Jennings, Beale & Co.'s Appeal

Citations

  • 2 Monag. 188
  • 1888 Pa. LEXIS 771

Syllabus

<p>An injunction to restrain one from acting as superintendent of a limited partnership, against the will of the majority of the managers, will be issued, where the bill alleges irreparable injury. That the defendant is the holder of a large amount of stock, will not prevent equitable interference. Nor will the fact that the parties entered into articles of agreement, in addition to the certificate under the Act of June 2, 1874, providing that the majority in number and value should decide all questions in relation to the business, but subject to such control, the defendant sliould have special charge of the mills, etc., at a specified salary, the defendant having been elected superintendent for one year, resigned and withdrew his resignation, but the office was abolished by a majority of the stockholders at the end of the year.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • contract interpretation generally “yields to the purpose of the parties as disclosed by the words used and by the nature of the understanding disclosed by the instrument”
  • where a contract contains mutual and dependent covenants, the burden is on the plaintiff in an action for breach of contract to prove the contract and the compliance with his covenant in order to recover

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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.