Uncover The Answers To Infertility

Considering also that the Illinois Court was construing the ruling of the U. S. Supreme Court, as to the responsibility of one director for the acts of other directors, of a corporation, which could only arise where the wrongful acts of the others were caused by the neglect of a passive director, 14 the Illinois case is especially forceful in presenting the distinction here sought to be emphasized. Among other language approved in Briggs v. Spaulding, supra, Was that taken from a Pennsylvania case 15 as follows: "We Are dealing now with their responsibility to stockholders, not 14Briggs v. Spaulding (1891), 141 U. S. 132, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924, 35 L. Ed. 662. ISSpering's Appeal (1872), 71 Pa. St. 11. To outside parties creditors or depositors. Upon a close examination of all the reported cases, although there are many dicta not easily reconcilable, yet I have found no judgment or decree which has held directors to account, except when they have themselves been personally guilty of some fraud on the corporation or have known and connived at some fraud in others, or where such fraud might have been prevented had they given ordinary attention to their duties. * * * It is evident that gentlemen selected by the stockholders from their own body ought not to be judged by the same strict standard as the agent or trustee of a private estate. Were such a rule applied, no gentlemen of character or responsibility would be found willing to accept such places."...