Court Opinion

ID: 9550449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:35:18.229191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:33.271875
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
dissenting, with whom URBIGKIT, Justice, joins.
I dissent. I disagree with the majority’s reasoning that, by declining to include the word “mortgage” in § 17-1-502, W.S.1977, the legislature demonstrated an express intent to repeal the stockholder consent requirement contained in § 17-1-501, W.S. *8761977, pertaining to mortgages made outside the usual and regular course of corporate business.
Section 17-1-129, W.S.1977, provides in material part that:
“If a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of the majority of the shares represented at the meeting and entitled to vote on the subject matter shall be the act of the shareholders, unless the vote of a greater number * * * is required by this act * * (Emphasis added.)
When § 17-1-129 is read in pari materia with §§ 17-1-501 and 17-1-502, it is clear that the legislature intended to require the vote of a greater amount of the shares of stockholders to sell, lease, or exchange property of the corporation than to mortgage the property.