Case Name: CHARLES ASHTON, Appellant, v. DASHAWAY ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-05-03
Citations: 84 Cal. 61
Docket Number: No. 12069
Parties: CHARLES ASHTON, Appellant, v. DASHAWAY ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 61–70

Head Matter:
[No. 12069.
In Bank.
May 3, 1890.]
CHARLES ASHTON, Appellant, v. DASHAWAY ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents.
Corporations — Benevolent Association—Division of Corporate Funds — Departure from Charter — Action by Member. — A benevolent association, incorporated to promote the cause of temperance, and not for pecuniary profit, cannot divide any part of the corporate property or funds among its members; and any member of such association may maintain an action to prevent or set aside such a plain misappropriation of the corporate funds. Every stockholder or member of a corporation has the right to sue in equity to prevent any departure from the chartered purposes of a corporation by the action of the majority.
Id.—Demand upon Trustees — Useless Act.—While it is the general rule that a member or stockholder of a corporation cannot have redress for any wrong or injury to the corporation until he has made an earnest effort to secure proper action by the managing body of the corporation, yet where it appears that it would be futile and useless to make a demand upon the corporation, or upon its trustees or officers, to commence a suit to obtain relief, or that the trustees are parties to the transaction complained of, and claim the right to do what they did," no such demand need be made.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco denying a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
S. Heydenfeldt, Jr., and Joseph P. Kelly, for Appellant.
Tilden & Tilden, and David McClure, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Sharpstein, J.
This appeal was heard in Department Two, which reversed the judgment and order of the court below. An opinion was filed November 22, 1889. Afterward a petition that the cause be heard in Bank was filed and granted, and the case has been argued in Bank, but the argument has failed to convince us that the decision of the Department was erroneous; and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Department, the judgment and order appealed from are reversed.