# Camp v. Shannon

> Texas Supreme Court · July 26, 1961 · 162 Tex. 515

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668984

## Case

- **Full name:** Jesse R. Camp v. Emery E. Shannon
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 26, 1961
- **Citations:** 162 Tex. 515; 4 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 625; 348 S.W.2d 517; 1961 Tex. LEXIS 687
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Norvell
- **Judges:** Norvell, Calvert
- **Cited by:** 185 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/9668984

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that corporate president who called, and participated in, shareholders meeting to elect directors was estopped from questioning the legality of the meeting and election of directors who later removed him
- holding that before stockholder can complain of defects in statutory notice requirement, stockholder must object when appearing and participating at stockholders’ meeting
- holding that defects in statutory notice requirement were waived by stockholder who appeared and participated without objection at stockholders' meeting
- explaining that injunction should not issue on mere surmise of injury

## Opinion text

*521 MR. JUSTICE NORVELL,
joined by Justices SMITH and GREENHILL, concurring.
The controlling circumstance in this case is the simply established fact that all of the owners of all the capital stock of the corporation were present either in person or by proxy at the disputed stockholders’ meeting which was called to order and presided over by the respondent. Obviously, the respondent is in no position to complain of the legality of such stockholders’ meeting, nor could he question the validity of directors’ meeting which followed. He may not invoke the aid of a court of equity to preserve his control of the corporation and thus set at naught the acts of the stockholders and the board of directors selected by such stockholders. This is the essential holding of the case and upon this basis, I concur in the order of reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668984. Public record. Not legal advice.