From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Childress v. L. Dinkelspiel Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of California.Department Two
Jan 28, 1928
263 P. 801 (Cal. 1928)

Summary

In Childress v. L. Dinkelspiel Co., Inc. (1928) 203 Cal. 262, 263, the plaintiff obtained an order enjoining a special meeting to elect an additional corporate director.

Summary of this case from Giles v. Horn

Opinion

Docket No. S.F. 12241.

January 28, 1928.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, granting an injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting for the election of a director. T.I. Fitzpatrick, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Dinkelspiel Dinkelspiel and Bradley Supple for Appellants.

Sullivan Sullivan and Theo. J. Roche and Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel for Respondents.


Appeal from order granting an injunction to prevent defendants from holding a special meeting for the election of an additional director of the defendant corporation, which additional director had been provided for pursuant to section 361 of the Civil Code. [1] The by-laws of the corporation provided for but five directors and also provided that "the directors shall be elected by ballot at the annual meeting of the stockholders to serve for one year," etc. It was further provided that "the annual meeting of the stockholders may be held . . . on the last business day of the month of December of each year." This language in by-laws has been construed as mandatory and not permissive. ( Pennington v. Pennington, 170 Cal. 114 [ 148 P. 790]; Stabler v. El Dora Oil Co., 27 Cal.App. 516 [ 150 P. 643].) After a compliance with section 361 of the Civil Code, the defendants called a special meeting for March 18, 1926, for the election of the additional director, which meeting was enjoined, as above stated.

Presuming, as we must, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the corporation and the directors thereof regularly performed their duty and called the annual meeting for the last business day of December, 1926, at which all directors of the corporation were elected for the ensuing year, the question presented by this appeal becomes moot. As stated in Matter of Guardianship of Ambrose, 170 Cal. 160 [ 149 P. 43]: "This court is not called upon to pass judgment on a question which, when given, can have no practical effect; where a controversy, existing at the time the appeal was taken, has, by reason of matters subsequently transpiring, ceased to exist. When this appears, the proper course is to dismiss the appeal."

The appeal is dismissed.

Richards, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Childress v. L. Dinkelspiel Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of California.Department Two
Jan 28, 1928
263 P. 801 (Cal. 1928)

In Childress v. L. Dinkelspiel Co., Inc. (1928) 203 Cal. 262, 263, the plaintiff obtained an order enjoining a special meeting to elect an additional corporate director.

Summary of this case from Giles v. Horn
Case details for

Childress v. L. Dinkelspiel Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HENRY H. CHILDRESS et al., Respondents, v. L. DINKELSPIEL CO., INC. (a…

Court:Supreme Court of California.Department Two

Date published: Jan 28, 1928

Citations

263 P. 801 (Cal. 1928)
263 P. 801

Citing Cases

Weber v. Nasser

Precedents for our conclusion — appeals where the questions have become moot — are numerous and the citation…

M. H. Golden Construction Co. v. El Centro Properties, Inc.

The facts decided in the first suit cannot be disputed.' (Bigelow on Estoppel, pp. 110, 111, 112; Rauer v.…