# Barde v. Portland News Publishing Co.

> Oregon Supreme Court · September 13, 1933 · 145 Or. 376

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3837753

## Case

- **Full name:** BARDE Et Al. v. PORTLAND NEWS PUBLISHING CO.
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 13, 1933
- **Citations:** 145 Or. 376; 28 P.2d 216; 26 P.2d 787; 1933 Ore. LEXIS 22
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Kelly
- **Judges:** Bean, Kelly
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3837753

## Opinion text

On Petition por Rehearing
( 28 P. (2d) 216 )
KELLY, J.
By a petition for rehearing, we are reminded that an acceptance is not required to render effective the resignation of an officer of a corporation.
In the case at bar, the record discloses that after Mr. Brockhagen tendered his resignation he executed the supplemental contract of May 25, 1931, on behalf of the Portland Telegram and on said date, he and Mr. Perry, acting as officers of the Portland Telegram, executed and affixed the seal of that corporation to
*393
the bill of sale and made oath that they were such officers. In the light of these facts, we held that between the corporation and a third party their action, as snch officers, was not invalid merely because the record also discloses that prior to the execution of said instruments Mr. Brockhagen had tendered his resignation which had not been accepted.
We do not wish to be understood as holding, in the absence of some provision, either of statute, by-law or of the resignation itself, requiring an acceptance, that, between the officers of a corporation, the acceptance by the corporation of a resignation of one of its officers is necessary in order to render such resignation effective.
Only questions argued and considered on the original hearing are presented by defendants’ motion for rehearing. To these again we have given careful consideration with the result that we adhere to our former holding.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3837753. Public record. Not legal advice.