People Ex Rel. Manice v. . Powell
201 N.Y. 194, 94 N.E. 634, 1911 N.Y. LEXIS 1235 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action in the nature of quo warranto, not a writ of mandamus, is the exclusive legal remedy for a director of a domestic corporation seeking to be reinstated after being removed from office when another individual has been elected to fill the vacancy and is in actual possession of the office.
Facts:
- William Manice was elected to the board of directors of the Atlantic Terra Cotta Company for a term set to expire in January 1912.
- Following a change in corporate management which Manice opposed, the company amended its certificate of incorporation to permit the removal of a director by a two-thirds vote of the board, ratified by two-thirds of the stockholders.
- Manice was subsequently accused of being an officer and director in a competing business, the Federal Terra Cotta Company.
- At a special board meeting, a resolution was introduced to remove Manice for cause based on his involvement with the competitor and for conduct not in the best interests of the company.
- The board denied Manice's request for a four-day adjournment to prepare a defense, offering only ten to fifteen minutes.
- The board of directors voted eight to three to remove Manice from his office.
- At a subsequent meeting, stockholders holding more than two-thirds of the company's stock voted to ratify the board's decision.
- The board then elected another person to fill the vacancy, and that person began performing the duties of a director.
Procedural Posture:
- William Manice (the relator) petitioned the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (trial court) for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel his reinstatement as a director of the Atlantic Terra Cotta Company.
- The Special Term denied the motion for the writ.
- Manice, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Special Term.
- Manice, as appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a writ of mandamus the proper remedy for a corporate director who claims to have been wrongfully removed from office when another person has been elected to fill the vacancy and is actively serving in that role?
Opinions:
Majority - Chase, J.
No. A writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy to try title to an office in a private corporation when another person is in actual possession of that office under a claim of right. The court held that directors are not mere employees who can be removed at will but are fiduciaries whose office is protected. However, the merits of the removal were not addressed because the wrong procedure was used. When two individuals claim title to the same corporate office and one is in possession, the dispute must be resolved through an action in the nature of a quo warranto, as provided by section 1948 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule applies to offices in domestic corporations just as it does to public offices. To allow mandamus in such cases would create an exception that would undermine the certainty and established practice of using quo warranto to settle title disputes.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the procedural distinction between mandamus and quo warranto for resolving disputes over corporate directorships in New York. By declaring quo warranto the exclusive remedy when a successor is already in office, the court prevents ousted directors from using the faster, summary proceeding of mandamus to regain their positions. This ruling enhances stability in corporate governance by protecting a sitting board from easily-filed legal challenges. However, it also raises the procedural burden on a director who believes they were wrongfully removed, forcing them into a more formal and potentially lengthy legal battle to prove their right to the office.
Unlock the full brief for People Ex Rel. Manice v. . Powell