DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
540 F.2d 681 (1976)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co. (the corporation) (defendant) acted as an agent for growers of farm products, selling the growers’ products on their behalf. Under its agreement with the growers, the corporation gave the growers the full sale price, less the corporation’s sales commission, and the transportation costs for transporting the products from the growers to the buyers, which was to be given to DeWitt Truck Brokers (plaintiff). Flemming, the corporation’s president, testified that he owned approximately 90 percent of the corporation’s stock, and was unclear as to who the other stockholders, officers, and directors were. There were never any directors’ or stockholders’ meetings. Flemming was the only stockholder or officer to ever receive a salary or dividend from the corporation, or had any say in its operation. Flemming received $15,000 to $25,000 a year at a time when the corporation was not showing a profit and had no working capital, and which payments were not authorized by the board of directors. Flemming does not dispute that the corporation had no capital reserves. DeWitt brought suit, seeking to impose personal liability on the corporation’s president. The district court pierced the corporate veil and imposed individual liability on Flemming. Flemming now appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
