Lane v. Wentworth
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah.; Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. I. W. Lane began this suit in the first instance against H. C. Mahon, claiming that, in the organization of a corporation by these two and others, it was agreed that for the purpose of financing the institution all the stock should be subscribed by and in the name of Mahon, with authority to hypothecate the same, but always subject to the condition and trust that the plaintiff should…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah.; Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. I. W. Lane began this suit in the first instance against H. C. Mahon, claiming that, in the organization of a corporation by these two and others, it was agreed that for the purpose of financing the institution all the stock should be subscribed by and in the name of Mahon, with authority to hypothecate the same, but always subject to the condition and trust that the plaintiff should have 6,500 shares par value of the stock, which should be transferred to him by Mahon on demand. The stock was pledged to…
1Opinion
Decided February 10, 1914.
On the Merits.
(138 Pac. 468.)
2Opinion of the CourtJustice Ramsey
This is a suit in equity for a decree requiring the defendant G. K. Wentworth to transfer to the plaintiff 6,500 shares of the capital stock of the Coast Range Lumber Company, or, in case he should fail or refuse to make such transfer, for a decree against him for the value of said stock, etc.
The suit was originally brought against the defendant H. C. Mahon alone; but subsequently the plaintiff, with leave of the court, amended his complaint, and made G. K. Wentworth a defendant.
As no question arises as to the sufficiency of the…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Todd v. MitchellIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Van Slyke v. Van SlykeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1910