McQuade v. Stoneham
New York Court of Appeals
263 N.Y. 323, 189 N.E. 234 (1934)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Stoneham (defendant) was the majority owner of National Exhibition Company. McGraw (defendant) and McQuade (plaintiff) each bought 70 shares of Stoneham’s stock. As part of the purchase, the three entered into a contract that provided that the parties would “use their best endeavors” to make sure that they would all remain directors of National Exhibition Company. Stoneham became president of the board, McGraw vice-president, and McQuade treasurer. Stoneham selected and controlled the other four directors. McQuade and Stoneham began quarreling about the corporate treasury. At a board meeting at which the position of treasurer was up for election, Stoneham and McGraw did not vote, McQuade voted for himself, and the four other directors voted for Leo Bondy to succeed McQuade. McQuade thus lost his position as treasurer. At the next board meeting, the board dropped McQuade as a director. McQuade’s removal was due to personal conflict with Stoneham, not for any misconduct by McQuade. McQuade brought suit for breach of contract, alleging that Stoneham and McGraw did not use their best efforts to keep him on as a director. Stoneham and McGraw claimed that the contract was void because the duty to act in the best interests of the corporation superseded the contract.The lower courts did not reinstate McQuade as treasurer but did award him damages for the breach.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pound, C.J.)
Concurrence (Lehman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.