Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mead, one of the directors of Philippine Engineering and Construction Company, sought to
recover his salary, share in profits and the value of the personal property he left with the
corporation which were sold by the defendants.
When Mead went to China to work as an engineer, the other four directors agreed to sell the
assets of the corporation to McCullough, another director of the corporation.
The sale, which was approved by a majority of the directors of the corporation, was held valid
and binding. At the time the sale was made, there was no hope that the enterprise would be
profitable. Although McCullough was present during the meeting when the sale was approved,
his presence was not necessary to constitute a quorum and likewise was not necessary to
approve the sale. The sale was approved by the three other directors who constituted a majority
and would therefore be binding on Mead.
Page 4 - UP-E2000COR2.doc
Mead v. McCullough
FACTS
- Mead, McCullough and three others organized the Philippine Engineering and Construction Company.
The 5 of them were the only stockholders and also the directors of the company, with general ordinary
powers.
- Mead was elected as the general manager of the company. Under him, the company failed in their
undertaking to raise sunken Spanish fleet. It became a losing concern and a financial failure.
- After 9 mos. as general manager, Mead resigned to accept the position of engineer of the Canton and
Shanghai Railway Company and thus left for China.
- Thereafter, realizing that continuing the operations of the company would mean more losses, the
remaining directors unanimously assigned all the rights and interests of the company to McCullough
for value, who also assigned the same for value to other people who with McCullough subsequently
formed the Manila Salvage Association.
- Mead is now alleging that he is entitled to receive his salary as general manager, profits made before
the assignment and the value of his personal property which he have left and sold by the defendants.
(main issue but impertinent to the lesson).
ISSUE/S
- Whether or not the remaining directors have the power to sell or transfer to one of its members the
assets of the corporation.
HELD
- Yes. It has to be remembered that the 5 directors herein are also the only stockholders. When the four
remaining directors met to resolve for the assignment, there was a quorum not only of the directors but
also of the stockholders.
- McCullough, while he was the president of the corporation, did not sit in the said meeting as a
representative of the corporation. The corporation was represented by the 3 directors who by
themselves already constituted a quorum.
- Hence, McCulloughs vote was not necessary in this case, nor was his presence needed to have a
quorum.
- The contact was also fair and reasonable as the company was already in bad shape.
DOCTRINE
- A majority of the stockholders or directors have the power to sell or transfer to one of its members the
corporate property, where the stockholders or directors have general ordinary powers, and where there
is nothing in the articles of incorporation which prohibit such a sale.
- Whether a private corporation remains solvent or is insolvent, there is no reason why a director or
officer, by authority of the majority of its stockholders or board of managers, may not deal with the
corporation, loan it money, or buy property from it in like manner as a stranger. But in all cases, such
officer or director must act in good faith and pay an adequate consideration.
Page 1 - Corp+Matrix+5.doc