Talbot v. James case brief summary
190 S.E.2d 759 (1972)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, as stockholders, brought an equitable action for an accounting. Respondent director, through a construction company he owned, had entered into a contract with the corporation for construction of respondent apartments. Appellants alleged that by diverting funds to himself, respondent director violated his fiduciary relationship to the corporation and to appellants as stockholders thereof.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Master of Equity issued a report finding that respondent director violated his fiduciary duty to appellants as stockholders. The trial judge reversed the findings and ordered judgment in favor of respondents.
DISCUSSION
The supreme court reversed and remanded, finding that respondent director had contracted with the corporation without making full disclosure to appellants.
CONCLUSION
The supreme court reversed and remanded, finding that respondent had contracted with the corporation without making full disclosure to appellants.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
190 S.E.2d 759 (1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants sought review of an order of
the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County (South Carolina) reversing
a report in which the Master of Equity for Horry County (South
Carolina) found that respondent violated his fiduciary duty to
appellants as stockholders.CASE FACTS
Appellants, as stockholders, brought an equitable action for an accounting. Respondent director, through a construction company he owned, had entered into a contract with the corporation for construction of respondent apartments. Appellants alleged that by diverting funds to himself, respondent director violated his fiduciary relationship to the corporation and to appellants as stockholders thereof.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Master of Equity issued a report finding that respondent director violated his fiduciary duty to appellants as stockholders. The trial judge reversed the findings and ordered judgment in favor of respondents.
DISCUSSION
The supreme court reversed and remanded, finding that respondent director had contracted with the corporation without making full disclosure to appellants.
CONCLUSION
The supreme court reversed and remanded, finding that respondent had contracted with the corporation without making full disclosure to appellants.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment