Charlestown Boot & Shoe Co. v. Dunsmore
60 N.H. 85 (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a statute granting management authority to a board of directors, shareholders cannot compel the directors to share their management powers with a non-director appointed by a shareholder vote, as such powers are exclusively vested in the board.
Facts:
- Charlestown Boot & Shoe Co. was a dividend-paying corporation.
- The shareholders of the corporation voted to wind up the company's affairs.
- In the same meeting, shareholders voted to appoint a Mr. Osgood, who was not a director, to a committee to act with the directors in closing the business.
- The corporation's property was not insured by the directors.
- The uninsured property was subsequently lost or destroyed (implied).
Procedural Posture:
- The Charlestown Boot & Shoe Co. sued its directors in a New Hampshire trial court, alleging negligence.
- The complaint included allegations that the directors failed to act with a committee member appointed by shareholders and failed to insure corporate property.
- The defendant directors filed a demurrer, arguing that the complaint failed to state a valid legal claim.
- The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to rule on the demurrer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a shareholder vote appointing an outside individual to a committee to act jointly with the board of directors in managing corporate affairs usurp the board's exclusive statutory authority, and do directors have a general duty to insure corporate property?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. A shareholder vote appointing a non-director to manage corporate affairs alongside the board is void, as the statute vests exclusive management power in the directors. The law does not permit a corporation to compel its directors to act with a non-director, as this would unreasonably burden the directors, who are legally responsible for their management decisions. The court reasoned that if a statute grants power to a specific set of officers, only those officers may exercise it. Furthermore, the court found no general duty for directors to insure corporate property, stating there is no statute that creates such an obligation, and no specific facts were alleged to create such a duty in this case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the fundamental corporate governance principle of centralized management, establishing a clear separation between the powers of shareholders and the board of directors. By voiding the shareholders' attempt to appoint a co-manager, the court affirmed that the board's statutory authority to manage the business is exclusive and cannot be usurped by shareholder micromanagement. This precedent protects directors' autonomy in making business judgments and clarifies that their duty of care does not automatically impose specific obligations, like purchasing insurance, absent a statute, by-law, or particular circumstances creating such a duty.
Unlock the full brief for Charlestown Boot & Shoe Co. v. Dunsmore