Steinway v. Steinway & Sons
17 Misc. 43, 40 N.Y.S. 718 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporation's incidental powers include expenditures reasonably tributary to promoting its primary business objectives, including those that secure the loyalty and well-being of its employees. A stockholder who acquiesces to such expenditures over a long period of time is equitably estopped from later challenging them as ultra vires.
Facts:
- In 1876, the Steinway family partnership incorporated as Steinway & Sons, a manufacturer of pianofortes, transferring all partnership assets, including about 400 acres of land in Astoria, Queens, to the new corporation.
- The corporation inherited and continued the partnership's policy of gradually moving its manufacturing operations from New York City to the Astoria property.
- To support the large number of employees who relocated to the sparsely populated Astoria site, Steinway & Sons invested in developing the community.
- Corporate expenditures included building houses for employees to rent or buy, regulating streets, installing sewers, and providing a water supply.
- Steinway & Sons also contributed corporate funds and property toward the establishment of a church, a school, a free library, and a free bath for the benefit of its employees.
- The plaintiff, a stockholder and long-time employee, was fully aware of these expenditures and the corporation's community-building policy for approximately sixteen years.
- During this period, the plaintiff attended trustee meetings, served as a trustee himself for a short time, and was in frequent consultation with corporate officers.
- Steinway & Sons also made other business-related expenditures, such as giving pianos to charities and musical artists to promote the brand's reputation and increase sales.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a stockholder in Steinway & Sons, filed a lawsuit against the corporation's trustees in a New York trial court (Supreme Court, Special Term).
- The suit sought an injunction to restrain the trustees from continuing certain acts alleged to be ultra vires (beyond the corporation's powers) and wasteful.
- The plaintiff also requested an accounting for past transactions and sought to hold the trustees personally liable to the corporation for damages from these alleged unlawful acts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are corporate expenditures on community development and employee welfare, such as building housing, schools, and churches, considered impermissible ultra vires acts when they are reasonably intended to promote the corporation's primary business by creating a stable and contented workforce?
Opinions:
Majority - Beekman, J.
No. Corporate expenditures on community and employee welfare are not impermissible ultra vires acts when they are reasonably tributary to the promotion of the corporation's primary business. The court found that an act is within a corporation's incidental powers if it is lawful, done to serve corporate ends, and reasonably promotes those ends in a substantial, not remote or fanciful, sense. Here, relocating the factory to Astoria required relocating a large workforce. Investing in the community to create a stable, healthy, and contented environment for those employees was directly related to the efficient performance of their work and the ultimate success of the piano manufacturing business. The court reasoned that this policy helped ensure the continued, faithful service of skilled operatives and minimized labor disputes. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff was barred from seeking equitable relief due to his own conduct. Having been fully aware of these corporate acts for sixteen years as an employee and insider without making a formal protest, he had acquiesced to them. It would be unconscionable to allow him to now hold the trustees liable for acts they were justified in believing all stockholders, including the plaintiff, had approved.
Analysis:
This case establishes a broad and flexible interpretation of corporate incidental powers, moving away from a strict construction of a corporation's charter. It affirms that corporations can make expenditures that are not directly part of their primary business, such as charitable or community-building efforts, as long as a rational link to promoting long-term corporate interests can be established. The decision is an early example of judicial deference to the business judgment of corporate directors in matters of strategic policy. It also powerfully affirms the equitable doctrine of acquiescence (or laches), preventing stockholders from 'sitting on their rights' and later challenging corporate actions they were long aware of and failed to formally oppose.
