Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/670

 § 647. J THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. X. an ordinary director. 1 But a director, or a president, who renders services outside of the scope of his regular duties, may, according to a number of decisions, recover the fair worth of such services in the absence of any resolution provid- ing for his compensation. 2 Agents and servants of the cor- poration, other than the directors, president, and perhaps treasurer, may recover the value of their regular or extraor- dinary services on a quantum meruit? 1 Holland v. Lewiston Falls Bk., 52 Maine, 564; McAvity v. Pulp Co., 82 Maine, 504; Kilpatrick v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co., 49 Pa. St. 118; Sawyer v. Pawner's Bk., 6 Allen, 207; Merrick v. Peru Coal Co., 61 111. 472; Gridley >:. Lafayette, etc., Ry. Co., 71 111. 200; Emporium R'l Estate Co. v. Emrie, 54 111. 345; St. Louis, A. & S. R. Co. v. O'Hara, 177 111. 525; Santa Clara M'g Ass'n d. Meredith, 49 Md. 389; Citizens' Nat. Bk. v. Elliott, 55 Iowa, 104; see Banigan v. U. S. Rub- ber Co., 22 R. I. 452; Wood's Sons Co. v. Schaefer, 173 Mass. 445. Same principles held to apply to a treasurer in Kilpatrick v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co., supra ; Holder v. Lafayette, etc., Ry. Co., 71 111. 106. Same rule ap- plies to a vice-president. Blue v. Bank, 145 Ind. 518. A vice-president performing the duties of the presi- dent is not entitled to the salary at- tached to the office of president, unless so provided in the by-laws. Brown's Executor v. Galveston Whai'f Co., 92 Tex. 520. 2 Santa Clara M'g Ass'n v. Mere- dith, 49 Md. 389; Cheeney v. Lafay- ette, etc., Ry. Co., 68 111. 570; S. C, 87 111. 446; Rockford, etc., R. R. Co. v. Sage, 65 111. 328; Bagley v. Car- thage R. R. Co., 165 N. Y. 179; Jack- son v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 653; Gardner v. Butler, 30 N. J. Eq. 702, 721; Shack- elford v. New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co., 37 Miss. 202; Citizens' Nat. Bk. 650 v. Elliott, 55 Iowa, 104; Rogers v. Hastings, etc., Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 25; Missouri River R. R. Co. v. Richards, 8 Kan. 101; Mitchell v. Holman, 3 Oregon, 280; Flynn v. Columbus Club, 21 R. I. 534; Bassett v. Fair- child, 132 Cal. 637; Lowe v. Ring, 106 Wis. 647. See Henry v. Rutland, etc., R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 435; Hodges i>. Same, 29 Vt. 220; Greensboro, etc., T. Co. v. Stratton, 120 Ind. 294; Bart- lett v. Mystic R'r Co., 151 Mass. 433; Severson v. Bi-Metallic Co., 18 Mont. 13. Contra, Levisee v. Shreveport City R. R. Co., 27 La. Ann. 641; Pew v. Gloucester Nat. Bk., 130 Mass. 391; Ruby Chief M. & M. Co. v. Prentice, 25 Colo. 4. Compare McCarthy v. Mt. Lecarte, etc., Co., Ill Cal. 328; Security Co. v. Bennington Mon. Ass'n, 71 Vt. 201. 8 E. g., a superintendent can. Bee v. San Francisco, etc., R. R. Co., 46 Cal. 248; or a secretary, who is not a trustee, or stockholder. Smith v. Long Island R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 190. Compare Eagle, etc., M'f'g Co. v. Brown, 58 Ga. 240. A corporation may agree to pay an agent for his labor in obtaining stock subscriptions. Cincinnati, I. and C. R. R. Co. v. Clarkson, 7 Ind. 595. Or for such services a person may recover on an implied promise. Hall v. Vermont and Mass. R. R. Co., 28 Vt. 401; Low v. Connecticut, etc., R. R. Co., 45 N. H. 370. A treasurer, secretary, or cashier is prima facie