Opinion

Dubbs v. Kramer

  • 302 Pa. 455
  • 153 A. 733
  • 1931 Pa. LEXIS 684
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 6, 1931
Status
Published
On the bench
Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaffer, Maxey
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 63.7%

holding that director cannot contract in advance regarding how he to vote; stating that “[a] contract made by a director that limits or restricts him in the free exercise of his discretion or judgment is against public policy”; collecting authorities

How later courts described this case

  • holding that director cannot contract in advance regarding how he to vote; stating that “[a] contract made by a director that limits or restricts him in the free exercise of his discretion or judgment is against public policy”; collecting authorities

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff sued in assumpsit to recover damages for breach of contract. Henry M. Dubbs, plaintiff, a minority stockholder, director and vice-president of RabigerKramer, Inc., entered into a written agreement with J. Albert Kramer, secretary and treasurer, director and majority stockholder, that, in addition to other provisions, at a meeting of the board of directors of the corporation, the board would vote a named salary to Dubbs “for his services as vice-president,” which compensation was not to be reduced except by reason of inability of the corporation to pay, and was to continue for five years. Plaintiff claims this agreement was entered into during a crisis of the company and he was called upon to manage its affairs; that having done so and being willing and able to continue this service, he is entitled to the compensation agreed upon. No meeting of the board of directors had been held to put into effect the agreement, which defendant repudiates.

Judgment for defendant was entered in an order of the court below, which states: “While directors of cor

*457

porations are not trustees, they occupy a fiduciary relationship toward the corporation. At best, plaintiff has a contract with defendant that the latter will vote at a meeting of the directors in favor of a resolution employing plaintiff at a salary of $5,200 per annum for five years. It is the duty of a director to deal with the affairs of a corporation at meetings of the board. Presumably he will discuss with his fellows the business of the corporation and act for its best interests. He cannot contract to use his vote for the benefit of anyone else, or even for the benefit of the corporation. If it were otherwise, a director might for a consideration moving to himself personally sell his vote as a director.

‘A

director cannot contract as to how he will vote’: Cook on Corporations, 8th edition, volume III, page 2190. A contract made by a director that limits or restricts him in the free exercise of his discretion or judgment is against public policy: Singers-Bigger v. Young, 166 Federal 82; Thomas v. Matthews, L. R. A. 1917 A, page 1068. If the contract alleged by plaintiff was one that was illegal, it cannot serve as a basis for an action for damages because of its breach.” This is a correct statement of the law applicable to directors of a corporation in the discharge of their duties as such, and rules this case.

The judgment for defendant is affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.