Hall v. Hall
Missouri Court of Appeals
506 S.W.2d 42 (1974)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Edward H. Hall and Harry L. Hall (defendant) were equal stockholders and directors of Musselman and Hall Contractors, Inc. (Musselman). Edward died, passing his interest to his wife, Margaret L. Hall (plaintiff). Harry appointed his own wife, Florence E. Hall, director to fill the vacancy created by Edward’s death. Harry and Florence then appointed themselves president and vice-president of Musselman. Subsequently, Harry refused to attend shareholders’ meetings. Missouri law required the presence of a majority of stockholders to constitute a quorum. Thus, directors could not be elected, and Harry and Florence remained holdover directors. At a later directors’ meeting, the sale of unissued capital stock was approved. Margaret made clear that she wanted to exercise her right to purchase half of the stock, but asserted that the action was invalid because Harry and Florence were not legal directors. Margaret petitioned the court for an injunction that would bar Harry from refusing to go to shareholders meetings, bar the setting of a terminal date on Margaret’s preemptive purchase rights, and bar Harry and Florence from carrying on as directors and officers. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The lower court granted the motion. Margaret appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
