Court Opinion

ID: 6545954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:19:34.585714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:58.034459
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING. Battle, J. Appellee, in his motion for re-consideration, insists that J. P. Franklin was not, under the statute, or by-laws of the Franklin Bros. Company, vice-president of the company; and that the statute provides that the directors of a corporation shall choose a president, secretary and treasurer and “such other officers as the by-laws of the corporation shall prescribe” (Kirby’s Digest, § 843), and the Franklin Bros. Company had no by-laws. The undisputed facts show that J. P. Franklin was vice-president. This fact was not questioned in the trial court. But appellee argues that the directors of the company were not authorized by the statute or the by-laws of the company to elect him vice-president. This is not true. The articles of association of the company provide for the election of a vice-president. This is a by-law within the meaning of the statute authorizing the election of a vice-president. It is not essential to the validity of a by-law that it be enacted in any particular form. The statutes or the' articles of association of the company do not prescribe any. In the absence of such requirements, it may be adopted “by the uniform course of proceedings of a corporation, as well as by an express vote manifested in writing. It has been said, speaking with reference to the question whether a certain by-law had been enacted, ‘even if there was no record, or the record was deficient, we consider it settled by the authorities that the enactment of a by-law need not necessarily be in writing, but may be inferred from facts proved.’” Lockwood v. Mechanics’ Nat. Bank, 11 Am. Rep. 253, 267; Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421; 1 Thompson’s Com. on the Daw of Corporations, § 943, and cases cited; 1 Cook on Corporations (4 Ed.), § 4a and cases cited. But, as the by-law in this case is in writing, it is not necessary for us to go to that extent. Motion for re-consideration is overruled.