Case Name: SEMPLE et al. v. FRISCO LAND CO., Limited, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1909-11-02
Citations: 124 La. 663
Docket Number: No. 17,448
Parties: SEMPLE et al. v. FRISCO LAND CO., Limited, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 663–669

Head Matter:
(50 South. 619.)
No. 17,448.
SEMPLE et al. v. FRISCO LAND CO., Limited, et al.
(Nov. 2, 1909.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 361*) — Appointment of Receiver — Appeal — Affidavit — Construction of Statute.
Act No. 159, p. 314, of 1898, § 4, providing that any person, who by affidavit appears to be interested, upon giving bond, may appeal on the face of the record from an order appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver of a corporation, under the act, does not apply to the parties to a suit for the appointment of a receiver; and, where the appeal is by one of them, no affidavit is necessary.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 361.*]
2. -Corporations (§ 553*) — Receiver.
Where heirs by compromise agreed to divide the successions of their parents among them according to a settlement to be worked out through a corporation to be organized, the settlement to be determined by a specified person, and the heirs to abide by his decision, if errors in the settlement proposed by him are so gross and palpable as to amount to fraud, the proper remedy would be the judicial adjustment of the accounts, and not the appointment of a receiver for the corporation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 553.*]
3. Corporations (§ 310*) — Officers — Residence.
The law does not require the president of a private corporation to reside in the parish of its domicile, nor does it forbid him from administering its affairs through agents or clerks.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 310.*]
4. Corporations (§ 553*) — Appointment of Receiver — Failure to Keep Minutes.
The failure of a secretary of a corporation to properly keep the minutes, while it might be ground for not re-electing him, would not be ground for appointing a receiver, especially in the absence of any suggestion of loss having resulted therefrom.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see -Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 553.*]
5. Corporations (§ 553*) — Appointment of Receiver — Grounds — Irregularities of Secretary.
The president and secretary, both directors of a corporation, favored a sale pf timber on the corporation’s land, and the third director opposed it. At the meeting at which the matter was considered, only the secretary and the third director were present, and one of them voted for and the other against the sale. The deed of sale, already signed by the president, was at the time in the secretary’s hands, as well as a letter from the president favoring the sale, and the secretary, thinking that the approval of the president was equivalent to a vote at the meeting, issued a certificate that the resolution authorizing the sale had been adopted, and consummated the sale. Subsequently the sale was ratified by formal resolution. Held, that the secretary’s act was an irregularity, which did not amount to a maladministration, justifying the appointment of a receiver.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 553.*]
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Carroll; Francis Xavier Ransdell, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Eugenia Semple and others against the Frisco Land Company. Limited, and others. From a judgment appointing a receiver for defendant corporation, it appeals.
Judgment set aside, and suit dismissed.
Looney & Scheen and Davis & Browne, for appellant. Snyder & G-ilfoil, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROVOSTY, J.
The defendant corporation has appealed from an order appointing a receiver to take charge of its affairs. Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the application for the appeal was not accompanied by the affidavit required by section 4 of Act No. 159, p. 314, of 1898. This court has decided that, where the appeal is by one of the parties to the suit, the said affidavit is not necessary. Davies v. Monroe Waterworks Co., 107 La. 145, 31 South. 694. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.