purpose of “manufacturing and supplying illuminating and heating gas.” Id. When the company sought to sell gas-consuming appliances, one of the company’s stockholders challenged the action as outside the company’s authority. This Court determined that the action was authorized, holding that a corporation may take any action that is not within the literal terms of the corporate grant so long as it is “at least very convenient” to the corporation’s purpose. Id. at 933. Because selling gas-consuming appliances would increase the demand for Lancaster’s gas supply, this Court concluded that the action was sufficiently related to the corporation’s chartered purpose of selling gas. Compare with Citizens’ Electric Illuminating Co. v. Lackawanna & W.V.R. Co., 255 Pa. 176, 99 A. 465, 467 (1916) (<HOLDING>). However, around the end of the 19th century
holding that a railroad company was unauthorized to sell excess electricity the company generated because such action was not directly and immediately appropriate to functioning as a railroad holding that a company that generated revenue from the sale of its assets remained in business holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company holding that exclusiveremedy provision applied to both temporary staffing company and client company holding in context of control person analysis that because defendant founded the company and was its largest shareholder he may be able to influence the company