Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

KLUGH v. MILLING CO

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 20, 1903
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
Attorney(S)

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.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

April 20, 1903. 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 constitute 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.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x