Bancroft-Whitney Company v. Glen
California Supreme Court
64 Cal.2d 327, 49 Cal.Rptr. 825, 411 P.2d 921 (1966)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Judson B. Glen (defendant) was a former president of Bancroft-Whitney Company (Bancroft) (plaintiff), a lawbook publisher. In 1961 Matthew Bender & Co. (Bender), a rival lawbook publisher, learned that Glen was unhappy in his position at Bancroft. Various employees of Bender began meeting with Glen to convince Glen to leave his job at Bancroft and go work for Bender. In these meetings, Glen discussed other Bancroft employees who might want to leave Bancroft for Bender. Glen spoke with these employees and told them that they would receive salary increases and better benefits if they joined Bender. In October 1961, Thomas Gosnell, the president of Bancroft’s parent company, heard rumors about Glen’s meetings. Gosnell and Glen met, and Glen told Gosnell that he was not planning to leave Bancroft to work for Bender. Glen also denied rumors that other employees within Bancroft were planning to join Bender. In December, Glen resigned from Bancroft. Sixteen other Bancroft employees resigned the same day. All 17 of these former Bancroft employees began working for Bender in January 1962. Bancroft sued Glen, arguing that Glen breached his fiduciary duty to Bancroft by inducing the 16 employees to leave Bancroft for Bender and by hiding his actions from Gosnell when the two men met. The trial court held that Glen did not breach his fiduciary duty to Bancroft. Bancroft appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.