Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

upon their stock, and constitute such stock paid up to the extent of such payments to creditors, and no resolution of the board of directors can afterwards invalidate such payments.

Carr v. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St. 413.

Dividends. The plaintiff, in order to recover from a corporation the dividends on its stock, must be the owner of the stock at the time the dividends accrued. Mere possession of the stock or a special property therein is not sufficient.

Dow v. Gould & Curry S. M. Co., 31 Cal. 630.

Dividends on Sale-Time-Construction.-Plaintiff assigned to defendant, September 22d, two shares of stock in a mining company, stating in the assignment: "I authorize the transfer to him (defendant) with all the dividends made after the morning of the twenty-third of September." Both parties expected a dividend on Monday, the twenty-second, but the trustees did not, in fact, declare dividends until between noon and one o'clock on Tuesday: held, that the dividends belonged to plaintiff, and that parol evidence was admissible to explain the transaction and point its meaning.

Brewster v. Lathrop, 15 Cal. 21.

§ 687. Forfeiture of Shares-Notice-Presumption.-The articles of association of a joint-stock company provided that if a shareholder should fail in paying any call, the company might give him notice that in default of payment within a specified time his shares would be forfeited; that if the requisition of any such notice were not complied with, the shares might be forfeited by a resolution of the directors to that effect; that when any share has been so forfeited, notice of such forfeiture should be given to such shareholder, and an entry should be forthwith made in the register of shareholders stating the date of such forfeiture, and that any share so forfeited should become the property of the company. K., a shareholder in the company, made default in payment of his calls, and notice was sent to him in due form, that unless he paid the calls by the second of September, they would be forfeited. The time having elapsed without payment, the secretary made entries in the books on the third of September, and the shares were forfeited and had been transferred to the company. But there was no entry in the minutes of any resolution having passed by the directors, nor any evidence of any notice of the forfeiture having been sent to K.: held, that there was a valid forfeiture of the shares, and that K. could not be placed on the list of contributaries as a

member of the company. As the entry of forfeiture on the books could not have been properly made without a resolution of the directors, the court was bound to assume that such a resolution had been passed. 2. That the forfeiture was complete on the third of September, without sending a notice of it to the shareholders, the provision in the articles as to sending the notice being mandatory only, and not of the essence of the forfeiture.

In re North Hallenbeagle M. Co.; Knight's Case, L. R., 2 Ch. App., 321.

Shares Forfeited between Sale and Suit.-Where, after a fraudulent sale of mining shares, and after demand to rescind and suit brought to set aside the sale, the shares become forfeited, both vendor and vendee, plaintiff and defendant, having full notice of the calls, the loss will fall upon the party against whom the decree ultimately goes. There is no engagement on

the part of the plaintiff to maintain such property during a suit to set aside a fraudulent sale thereof.

Maturin v. Treddenick, 10 L. T., N. S., 331; see S. C., 9 Id. 82.

Recission after Sale of Stock-Fraud.-A plaintiff seeking to set aside as fraudulent a sale of mining shares made to him by the defendant can not have a recission after he has sold such shares; but the sale of certain shares does not deprive him of the right of rescission as to others not sold, where the property is all of one sort. (In this case shares in different companies.) Maturin v. Treddenick, 10 L. T., N. S., 331; see S. C., 9 Id. 82.

Seizure by Sheriff on the Person.-Where a defendant in an attachment suit was examined under section 131 of the practice act, and on its appearing that his only property subject to attachment consisted of mining stock which he had upon his person, the district judge ordered it to be delivered to the sheriff, to be held subject to the result of the suit: held, that such order was not in excess of the jurisdiction of the district judge. Bivins v. Harris, 8 Nev. 153.

Lis Pendens.-The pendency of an action in another state to determine the title to corporate stock is not constructive notice to a purchaser in this state of a defect in the title of his assignor, and does not affect the title acquired by him.

Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616.

Equitable Power to Compel Issue-Practice.-Where the board of directors of a corporation, in issuing new stock to the stockholders generally, refuse to issue to a particular stockholder his

due proportion of such new stock, he may compel its issue to him by suit in equity against the corporation, there being sufficient of such stock undisposed of, notwithstanding his remedy at law for damages.

Dousman v. Wisconsin M. & S. Co., 40 Wis. 418.

But in such case the interest of each shareholder in like condition is several, and they can not bring an action in the name of one on behalf of himself and others.

Dousman v. Wisconsin M. & S. Co., 40 Wis. 418.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

MINING CLAIMS BEFORE COURTS.

INJUNCTIONS IN MINING CASES.

§688. Against Officers of Land Department.
§ 689. Jurisdiction of Courts-State and Federal.
§ 690. Irreparable Damage.

[blocks in formation]

§ 688.

§ 709. On Appeal.

Against Officers of Land Department.-An injunction will not lie against an officer of the land department, to control him in his official duty which requires the exercise of his judgment and discretion.

Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473.

Where the legal title is vested, the equities subject to which the patentee holds it may then be judicially enforced, and where that department has upon the uncontradicted facts committed an error of law by which the land has been awarded to a party to the prejudice of a right of another, the latter is entitled to relief.

Where, however, there was a mixed question of law and fact, and the court can not separate it so as to ascertain what the mistake of law is, the decision of the department affirming the right of one of the contesting parties to enter a tract of public land is conclusive.

Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473.

A temporary injunction is dissolved by a final judgment, and the fact that plaintiff has appealed does not modify its legal effect in this particular.

Gardner v. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14.

$689. Jurisdiction of Courts-State and Federal.-A state court has the power and jurisdiction to issue an injunction in favor of one foreign corporation against another foreign corporation, both having been organized under the laws of Great Britain.

Direct U. S. Cable Co. v. Dominion Tel. Co., 84 N. Y. 153.

No injunction will be granted by a United States court to interfere with the possession, control, or disposition of property which is in the hands of a receiver appointed by a state court. Hutchinson v. Green, 2 McGarry, 471.

The plaintiff in an action brought in a state court may, under certain circumstances, be enjoined by a circuit court of the United States from further prosecuting the cause in the state

court.

Dietzsch v. Hendecoper, 103 U. S. 494.

But where an injunction is granted to a party without requiring him to give bond or other undertaking, the circuit court has no power to award damages to the injured party, except by such a decree in the matter of costs as may be deemed equitable.

Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433.

Mining Cases Distinguished from Common Cases for the Writ. Injunctions to prevent persons from working a gold mine, to which the plaintiff claims title, are not put upon the same footing with injunctions to stay executions on judgments at law, where the legal rights of the parties have been adjudicated.

McBrayer v. Hardin, 7 Ired. Eq. 1.

In cases of the former class, where it appears that if the defendants' allegations be true, the injunction can do them no harm, but if the plaintiff's allegations be true, he may sustain an irreparable injury, the injunction should be continued to the hearing, that the facts may be investigated.

McBrayer v. Hardin, 7 Ired. Eq. 1.

Jurisdiction to Protect Mines.-The general rule is that a court of equity takes no jurisdiction in cases mere trespass, not even by granting a temporary injunction. There is an established exception, however, in the cases of mines, timber, and the like, in which cases injunctions will be granted to restrain the continued commission of acts by which the substance of the estate is

« ForrigeFortsett »